PPP: Romney with edge in Michigan, crushing lead in Arizona

posted at 8:40 am on February 27, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

For a while after Rick Santorum’s sweep in early February, it appeared that Mitt Romney might be on the ropes in the Republican primary.  Santorum once held a significant lead in Michigan and close to a tie in Arizona, and seemed poised for another multi-state upset.  According to the latest polling from PPP in both states, though, the momentum has swung in the other direction.  In PPP’s poll of Michigan, Romney has begun to edge Santorum one day ahead of their primary, but also with a significant lead in early voting:

Mitt Romney’s taken a small lead over Rick Santorum in PPP’s newest Michigan poll. He’s at 39% to 37% for Santorum, 13% for Ron Paul, and 9% for Newt Gingrich. Compared to a week ago Romney’s gained 6 points, while Santorum’s just stayed in place.

Romney will go into election day with a large lead in the bank. Only 16% of Michigan voters say they’ve already cast their ballots, but Romney has a whooping 62-29 advantage over Santorum with that group. Santorum actually leads Romney 39-34 with those who are planning to cast their votes on Tuesday, but he’d need to win election day voters by even more than that to neutralize the advantage Romney’s built up.

The last week of the campaign in Michigan has seen significant damage to Santorum’s image with GOP voters in the state. His net favorability has declined 29 points from +44 (67/23) to now only +15 (54/39). Negative attacks on Romney meanwhile have had no negative effect with his favorability steady at +20 (57/37). Two weeks ago Santorum’s net favorability in Michigan was 34 points better than Romney’s. Now Romney’s is 5 points better than Santorum’s. Those kinds of wild swings are the story of the GOP race.

One place Santorum may have hurt himself in the last week is an overemphasis on social issues. 69% of voters say they’re generally more concerned with economic issues this year to only 17% who pick social issues. And with the overwhelming majority of voters more concerned about the economy, Romney leads Santorum 45-30. Santorum’s winning those more concerned about social issues 79-12 but it’s just not that big a piece of the pie.

The debate did Santorum no favors in Michigan, although it may have been the aftermath of the debate that did more damage. Instead of focusing on a positive message, Santorum felt the need to go after Romney hard — much like Newt Gingrich did in Florida.  Santorum got his surge by sticking to blue-collar economics and directing his passionate attacks against Barack Obama rather than his Republican competitors; it appears that the mediocre debate performance knocked Santorum off of his previously-successful strategy.

The sample in this case looks pretty solid.  The D/R/I in the sample for Michigan’s open primary is 5/67/28 — a near duplicate of the exit poll from Michigan’s 2008 primary of 7/68/25.  Forty-two percent identified themselves as evangelical Christians, which seems high against the 2008 exit polling, which didn’t ask the question the same way but had 40% Protestants, 29% Catholics, and 19% “other Christians.”  Whatever problems Santorum has in this poll, they’re not related to the sampling.

Arizona would have been a long shot for Santorum under any circumstances, and PPP’s new poll makes it clear that Romney will get an easy ride in the winner-take-all state:

Mitt Romney is headed for an overwhelming victory in Arizona’s primary on Tuesday. He’s at 43% to 26% for Rick Santorum, 18% for Newt Gingrich, and 11% for Ron Paul.

You can make a fair argument that Romney’s already won the Arizona primary. Almost half of those planning to vote have already cast their ballots, and Romney has a 48-25 advantage over Santorum with those folks. That lead makes it nearly impossible for Santorum to make up the difference on election day, and Romney has a 39-27 advantage with those planning to vote on Tuesday anyway.

Romney’s winning basically winning every voter group in Arizona, even those he’s tended to do quite poorly with. He leads Santorum 39-33 with Evangelicals, 39-23 with Tea Party voters (Santorum’s in 3rd, Gingrich is actually 2nd at 30%), and 37-29 with those describing themselves as ‘very conservative.’ We project the Mormon vote at 14%. Romney leads 77-9 with them, but he has a 38-29 advantage with non-Mormons as well. Seniors are a key base of support for him in Arizona as they are everywhere. He leads 53-22 with them.

ARG has it much closer in Arizona at 39/35 Romney in a poll taken Thursday and Friday.  However, they also show a big advantage for Romney among early voters, 50/29, and 48% of their sample had already cast their ballots.

A loss in Arizona won’t matter as much to Santorum as a loss in Michigan will.  A loss in a key Rust Belt state, where Santorum’s draw among blue-collar workers should be felt most, will be seen as a setback after his large polling leads of a week ago.  Santorum needs the momentum from at least one win to help him sail through a tough Super Tuesday next week.  We’ll see what other pollsters say about Michigan today, but with Rasmussen also seeing a Santorum slide to second (by six points rather than two), the PPP poll doesn’t look like an outlier.


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

Momentum?

Yes

rich801 on February 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM

So there is a chance we will be rid of Obama! I’m happy.

thuja on February 27, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Romney may have voters and polls on his side, but Rick has a promise from God that he’ll win…not even a contest between the support bases.

AngusMc on February 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Go Mitt!!
Mitt Romney = the man who will beat Obama.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM

I will vote and work hard for Mitt if he is the nominee but I just see Obama tearing him to pieces. If we are going down I want to go down with a fighter.

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Time to rally around Newt!

tkyang99 on February 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM

He needs to win MI by at least 20 points to consider it a success.

He is outspending Santorum 10 to 1

liberal4life on February 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM

I love the senior voters! I think they are going to be key in giving Obama the boot and electing Mitt.

Those seniors know what’s up.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:49 AM

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM

How can you suggest Romney is not a fighter? Romney has shown that he will fight, tooth and nail, with every dirty trick in the book, to destroy anyone who stands in his way.

swinia sutki on February 27, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Well, polls have been wrong most of the time, here in Michigan!
We are an open primary state…and they are looking to make trouble!
Remember when George Wallace won…polsters never saw it coming.
Remember when Govenor John Engler promised George Bush, Michigan was his Firewall? John McCain won. Take your poll…turn it into a pole…and stick it!

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Time for Santorum and Gingrich to go away. They have spots booked on talk shows and Fox News for the next decade.

Which is all they’re in for at this point anyway.

NoDonkey on February 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I want this done already… so, we can find out who the VP pick will be!

princetrumpet on February 27, 2012 at 8:53 AM

The demographics tell the story loud and clear.
Many of us in Michigan are voting for Saint Rick, just to keep Mittens the hell out of the race. Willard is a lying fraud, and a lot of Michiganders know it.

As for AZ, my former home of 30 years, the demographics favor the squish who is a Mormon and a left-of-center ‘Republican’. Enough Democrats and Indies have moved to AZ over the past few decades, it’s disgusting. One reason why I left. When enough migrants elected two homosexers to run the State (Gov. Napolitano and AG Goddard), I knew it was time to go.
And then there’s the illegal Mess’kan mess. My former bastion of liberty has become a dump.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 27, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Santorum felt the need to go after Romney hard — much like Newt Gingrich did in Florida.

I watched 20 debates where somebody decided to go after Romney hard in almost every debate. Sometimes it would work temporarily but rarely permanently. Afterwards, the same folks would grumble that nobody went after Romney. So up would come the next ABR contender and they’d swing for the fences and foul out too. Why is that? Is Romney really teflon guy or after the 2008 nomination and then 20 more debates have people basically heard it all before? Is RomneyCare, (gasp) he’s from Massachusetts and “but..but… he’s a rich guy” just plain old news now?

rhombus on February 27, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Let me predict what happens. Mittens wins Arizona. He squeaks by in Michigan. Then he goes on TV the next day and makes an ass of himself and the voters have second thoughts(for the 10th time) about nominating him. So Santorum bounces back and does well on Super Tuesday. And then he has the momentum again(for the 3rd time) and we do this song and dance all over.

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM

swinia: He won’t do it against Obama. Mitt = Bob Dole and Jerry Ford. I have seen this show before.

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 8:56 AM

He needs to win MI by at least 20 points to consider it a success.

He is outspending Santorum 10 to 1

liberal4life on February 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM

You are missing some buttons on your remote again, and your clock is missing some numbers…where did you get that stat? Your diaper?

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Mitt Romney wants this bad. And the country needs Mitt.

Barack Obama isn’t going to know what hit him.

Romney is the kind of guy who, the more exposure you get to him, the more you like him and the more confidence you have in him. As we’ve seen in the last few months, the same can’t be said for Newt and Santorum.

Romney is an extremely competent, impressive, talented man, and his policies best represent what Americans want.

The worst his detractors have been able to say about him is that he’s rich and isn’t extreme enough for Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Santorum got his surge by sticking to blue-collar economics….

I beg to differ. Santorum got his surge by being the penultimate not-Romney standing.

Syzygy on February 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Let me predict what happens. Mittens wins Arizona. He squeaks by in Michigan. Then he goes on TV the next day and makes an ass of himself and the voters have second thoughts(for the 10th time) about nominating him. So Santorum bounces back and does well on Super Tuesday. And then he has the momentum again(for the 3rd time) and we do this song and dance all over.

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM

That would be a perfect scenario especially if you work for the media, want to keep a “horse race” going for ratings and also want to drain these candidates of as much loot as you possibly can.

rhombus on February 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM

But Romney came out and dropped the bombshell that he has successful friends today. Polls are going to turn around.

Kriggly on February 27, 2012 at 8:58 AM

He needs to win MI by at least 20 points to consider it a success.

He is outspending Santorum 10 to 1

liberal4life on February 27, 2012 at 8:47 AM

C/P your own comments?

Lame.

fossten on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Why do you people repeat the same LAME Mark Levin talking points over and over? It’s always obvious who listens to the SAME shows.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Let me predict what happens. Mittens wins Arizona. He squeaks by in Michigan. Then he goes on TV the next day and makes an ass of himself and the voters have second thoughts(for the 10th time) about nominating him. So Santorum bounces back and does well on Super Tuesday. And then he has the momentum again(for the 3rd time) and we do this song and dance all over.

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM

I don’t necessarily know it’ll be another round of Santorum, we could just as easily swing back to Gingrich or have the dreaded Ron Paul surge.

I think it’s going to be like this pretty much all this way to the convention, and I think the convention itself is going to be very ugly.

Doomberg on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

empty stadium. that’s all you need to know about Willard’s chances in MI.

james23 on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

swinia: He won’t do it against Obama. Mitt = Bob Dole and Jerry Ford. I have seen this show before.

celtic warrior

All Barry has against Romney is “Hey, do you know this guy is rich?”. Its not like Barry can go head to head with Romney on picking which businesses to invest in.

Zaggs on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

santorum never had a chance to beat Obama anyway.

fwm299 on February 27, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM

(Why isn’t Newt in the equation?)

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I don’t necessarily know it’ll be another round of Santorum, we could just as easily swing back to Gingrich or have the dreaded Ron Paul surge.

I think it’s going to be like this pretty much all this way to the convention, and I think the convention itself is going to be very ugly.

Doomberg on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Not such a bad thing. As Rush points out, this prevents Obama from knowing which one to focus oppo on.

fossten on February 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM

When enough migrants elected two homosexers[...]

Karl Magnus on February 27, 2012 at 8:54 AM

No wonder you support the unelectable BIGOT Rick Santorum.

Karl, you are clearly out of step with your fellow Michiganders. Michigan voters are rejecting the unelectable bigot Rick Santorum, and they want to go with a conservative CLASS ACT like Mitt Romney, who WILL defeat Obama in November.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:02 AM

The worst his detractors have been able to say about him is that he’s rich and isn’t extreme enough for Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, etc.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Beck and Palin support Santorum and or Gingrich, depending on which way the wind is blowing and you have to be truly delusional to posit that they are any more conservative than Romney is.

Beck and Palin are just desperate to draw attention to themselves. Once there’s one candidate in this race, no one will be interested in what they have to say anymore and THAT’S what they don’t want, not Romney.

NoDonkey on February 27, 2012 at 9:03 AM

And when it comes down to Romney being the nominee, all those polls that have been showing a race against barack being neck-and-neck, will start showing barack being buried as all GOP/Indys, and fed-up Dems rallying around Romney.

That is my hope and prayer.

DuctTapeMyBrain on February 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

empty stadium. that’s all you need to know about Willard’s chances in MI.

james23 on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Not true! Venue was a Chamber of Commerce function which was sold out!

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

But Romney came out and dropped the bombshell that he has successful friends today. Polls are going to turn around.

Kriggly on February 27, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I guess it’s a shock to hear that Mitt doesn’t hang with losers…LOL

rich801 on February 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I don’t necessarily know it’ll be another round of Santorum, we could just as easily swing back to Gingrich or have the dreaded Ron Paul surge.

I think it’s going to be like this pretty much all this way to the convention, and I think the convention itself is going to be very ugly.

Doomberg on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Ron Paul will never surge. Especially since he doesn’t even seem to be competing in non-caucus states anymore(unless it’s on Mittens’ behalf). Newt is finished. He’ll still draw his standard 10-15% of the vote, but that’s clearly not enough to warrant staying in the race, not even with proportionally allocated delegates.

It’s a 2-man race at this point with 2 very flawed candidates. Santorum’s problems are he focuses too much on social issues(which is ok to a point, but he often goes too far) and he doesn’t have any money. Mittens’ problems are that the base has no enthusiasm for him and he’s an incredibly tone deaf politician. It’s hard to see how this shakes out if there are no more debates. I suppose it’ll come down to who screws up the least.

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Early voter here, will be a precinct judge tomorrow with no internet access…will be with you all in spirit until the polls close

cmsinaz on February 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM

empty stadium. that’s all you need to know about Willard’s chances in MI.

james23 on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Not true! Venue was a Chamber of Commerce function which was sold out!

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Logic and reading is not James’ forte…LOL

rich801 on February 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Why do you people repeat the same LAME Mark Levin talking points over and over? It’s always obvious who listens to the SAME shows.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

What do you listen to????????????????????

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Or not…

NickDeringer on February 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM

empty stadium. that’s all you need to know about Willard’s chances in MI.

james23 on February 27, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Romney doesn’t need that to win, he just needs to crush Santorum’s base via negative advertising.

The problem is this tactic won’t be viable in the general, and that combined with the perennial establishment Republican urge to roll over and play dead when the MSM makes frowny faces at them, I don’t see how Romney wins.

I’ve said this before, but if he’s our nominee I’m expecting him to drift down to the low 40s in the polls by a month after the nomination and sit there for the rest of the cycle.

Doomberg on February 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Beck and Palin are just desperate to draw attention to themselves. Once there’s one candidate in this race, no one will be interested in what they have to say anymore and THAT’S what they don’t want, not Romney.

NoDonkey on February 27, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I really think you are right.

I also just think the perception of many voters will be that Mitt Romney wasn’t “extreme” enough for people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who many (and not just liberals) don’t think very highly of. I think this perception (whether it’s accurate or not) will be good for Romney in a general election.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

The local news and papers here are reporting that Mitt now has a 6pt lead over Santorum. I will vote for Rick and hope for the best.

shar61 on February 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

My prediction remains what it was two months ago:

Mitt Romney will be the nominee. He will then lose to Obama.

I also think that some people are wildly overstating Romney’s Chuck-Norris-ishness, since Romney’s SuperPAC have been relentless pumping out anti-Gingrich and anti-Santorum ads and yet both Gingrich and Santorum are still in the race. They’ll probably lose in the end, but unlike Perry and Bachmann, they are still running. (And there’s also the fact that this unstoppable conservative juggernaut couldn’t do much at all about the Massachusetts legislature when he was governor.)

Aitch748 on February 27, 2012 at 9:09 AM

(Why isn’t Newt in the equation?)

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Because Newt had 2 chances as the frontrunner and promptly blew it both times. His baggage is bad enough, but when it’s become clear that he has a meltdown anytime things aren’t going his way, too many voters in the primaries will realize that he’s simply too risky to nominate.

And with the debates likely over, his biggest strength has been neutralized. All he has left is his SuperPAC money and that won’t be enough to get him back into this thing.

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 9:09 AM

What do you listen to????????????????????

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I haven’t listened to anything in awhile, but in the past I listened to Michael Medved, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Dr. Laura. Oh, and I used to like that Art Bell show about all the kooky stuff.

I think it was mostly due to when I was able to listen and what was on in my area. I’ve never really listened to Rush Limbaugh, since he’s never on when I’m in the car.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Bluegill: I don’t listen to Mark Levin,I live in Europe as an expat.If Mr. Romney is the nominee I hope and pray he wins,if Mr. Santorum is the nominee will all the Romney people on this board vote for Santorum? America is at stake here,not some psycological attachment to an individual.

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 9:12 AM

The March of Mittens!!

canopfor on February 27, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Mitt Romney is almost the ideal candidate in so many ways. I totally agree with Ann Coulter’s assessment.

The great thing about having Romney as the nominee is that it will be easier to keep the focus on Obama’s economic failures and NOT on the wacko views (e.g., Santorum) or embarrassing buffoonery (e.g., Sarah Palin) of his challenger.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

One reason why I left. When enough migrants elected two homosexers to run the State (Gov. Napolitano and AG Goddard), I knew it was time to go.
And then there’s the illegal Mess’kan mess. My former bastion of liberty has become a dump.

And Arizona thanks you for leaving. The less ignorance and intolerance, the better.

sob0728 on February 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Doughboy makes an important point. Romney has said something stupid after every major win, and he needs to better discipline himself.

As to Romney’s chances in the fall: Mitt hasn’t spent 6 years of his life in seedy Holiday Inns to roll over for Obama. The Romney team is tough as nails, and they will win in November.

matthew8787 on February 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I will vote and work hard for Mitt if he is the nominee but I just see Obama tearing him to pieces. If we are going down I want to go down with a fighter.

I don’t think it will be that easy for Obama to tear Romney to pieces, but I do expect him to try. I’m more concerned that he’ll tear the country to pieces in the attempt.

Confutus on February 27, 2012 at 9:18 AM

if Mr. Santorum is the nominee will all the Romney people on this board vote for Santorum?

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 9:12 AM

There are “Anyone but Romney” people who won’t vote for Santorum either.

cool breeze on February 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Asked by the AP reporter if he follows NASCAR, Mitt Romney responded, “Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”

Democrats and liberals quickly ridiculed the remark on Twitter. “I don’t know people who fish but I know people who own yachts,” tweeted Brad Woodhouse, communications director of the Democratic National Committee. Ari Melber, a writer for the liberal Nation magazine who apparently was watching the Oscars, tweeted: “Do I like movies? Well I have some friends who own movie companies.”

Not to forget this self professed 2008 NRA “hunter” who couldn’t hit a target, especially one as evasive as a rabbit or squirrel. Perhaps Mitt has some friends who own Haliburton and Blackwater aka Academi.

maverick muse on February 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

O/T,oh boy,Obama’s Progressive Racist Mindset!!
(sarc)

Millions of dollars in White House money has helped pay for NYPD Muslim surveillance – @APStory

Submitted 23 mins ago from http://www.usatoday.com
http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

WASHINGTON (AP) – Millions of dollars in White House money has helped pay for New York Police Department programs that put entire American Muslim neighborhoods under surveillance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-27/white-house-muslim-NYPD/53267060/1

canopfor on February 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM

It’s one thing to say that Romney is not conservative enough for you, but to turn around and say Romney/Gingrich ARE, just doesn’t make an ounce of sense.

That’s why I’m so disgusted with the talkers. They think we’re stupid enough not to notice that their arguments against Romney really don’t hold water.

NoDonkey on February 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Go NO Mitt!!
Mitt Romney = the man who will beat Obama.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM

ConcealedKerry on February 27, 2012 at 9:26 AM

That’s why I’m so disgusted with the talkers. They think we’re stupid enough not to notice that their arguments against Romney really don’t hold water.

NoDonkey on February 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I totally agree.

Sometimes it feels like certain conservative bloggers or talk show hosts want to maintain some hard conservative cred among their fans, so they have to be viewed as going for the candidate who is seen as “the conservative one” at any particular time. Remember when Romney was “THE conservative choice” in 2008? Romney hasn’t changed, other than to become an even BETTER candidate.

I think Newt, Mitt and Rick (excluding social issues) agree on way more than they disagree on. To me, it all comes down to electability. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich can’t win. Romney can.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Thanks AZ!

Is it something in the water?

Has Meheho taken over your state?

First McDumbazz now teh Mittens?

ConcealedKerry on February 27, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Romney is not a conservative, but neither are Santorum or Gingrich. All three are Big Government stalwarts and neither will decrease the size of their beloved beast. Ron Paul is fiscally conservative but holds a foreign policy so abysmal that raises his mental condition as an issue. Pick your poison, Republicans, pick your poison.

Archivarix on February 27, 2012 at 9:28 AM

if Mr. Santorum is the nominee will all the Romney people on this board vote for Santorum?

Romney’s repeated that whoever wins the GOP ticket has his vote/endorsement. Easy to say when projected the inevitable. I seem to recall Romney sulking after being bested by John McCain ’08. Whatever.

Santorum’s rise is merely a political/media manipulation that effectively provides another timely scapegoat to be rendered, as the Repo Men in collusion with Republican Party Leadership determined that their chosen Obamalite is the only “electable” candidate to be GIVEN the ticket, regardless of votes.

maverick muse on February 27, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Heres what Billy Graham sons Franklin has to say on the Nominees,
brace yourselfs,whos Conservative and Christian,er Mormon,plus,the
Morning Joes jaw(s) drops,over comments,er his opinion of Obama!

Morning Joe: Franklin Graham the Religious Guru
Added: 5 days ago Occurred On: Feb-21-2012
******************************************

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b83_1329859975

canopfor on February 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM

That’s why I’m so disgusted with the talkers. They think we’re stupid enough not to notice that their arguments against Romney really don’t hold water.

NoDonkey on February 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I agree. It has been disappointing, but enlightening to see how certain of the conservative media have gone completely negative on Romney. I understand the argument, which Ed makes, that supporting Romney in ’08 was different, because he was much more of conservative than McCain……but Levin and even Limbaugh,now try and make the case that there is nothing conservative about Romney, which is patently ridiculous and undermines their credibility in my opinion.

Priscilla on February 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Mitt Romney is almost the ideal candidate in so many ways. I totally agree with Ann Coulter’s assessment.

The great thing about having Romney as the nominee is that it will be easier to keep the focus on Obama’s economic failures and NOT on the wacko views (e.g., Santorum) or embarrassing buffoonery (e.g., Sarah Palin) of his challenger.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Romney’s a Mormon. His “wacko views” will be dealt with soon enough by the secular left. If a devout Catholic like Santorum can be sold to even a fair number of social conservatives as a religious zealot, imagine what they’ll do to Mittens. As for embarrassing buffoonery, have you heard the gaffes Romney’s been serving up lately? In the last month alone, we’ve gotten the “I’m not concerned about the very poor”, “trees are the right height here”(twice), “my wife drives 2 Cadillacs”, and “I have friends who are NASCAR owners”. Just imagine what this guy will do when he’s the nominee and the entire Democrat/media complex sets its sights on him.

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Heres what Billy Graham sons

Thats son,not sons..ugh!

canopfor on February 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Let me predict what happens. Mittens wins Arizona. He squeaks by in Michigan. Then he goes on TV the next day and makes an ass of himself and the voters have second thoughts(for the 10th time) about nominating him.
Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Mitt was excellent on Fox News Sunday yesterday (despite the idiotic questions posed by Chris Wallace who seems to have a listening comprehension problem).

Buy Danish on February 27, 2012 at 9:36 AM

if Mr. Santorum is the nominee will all the Romney people on this board vote for Santorum?

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 9:12 AM

There are “Anyone but Romney” people who won’t vote for Santorum either.

cool breeze on February 27, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Romney supporters are patriots who will support the nominee. Romney supporters who say they will not vote for Santoroum are outnumbered 100-1 by the ABRs who say they will not vote if Mitt is the nominee.

Basilsbest on February 27, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Romney is not a conservative, but neither are Santorum or Gingrich. All three are Big Government stalwarts and neither will decrease the size of their beloved beast. Ron Paul is fiscally conservative but holds a foreign policy so abysmal that raises his mental condition as an issue. Pick your poison, Republicans, pick your poison.

Archivarix on February 27, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Romney’s main advantage is that he’s got experience in turning around failing economies. While Gingrich claims to have done the same as Speaker, his record doesn’t bear that out.

Syzygy on February 27, 2012 at 9:39 AM

If a devout Catholic like Santorum can be sold to even a fair number of social conservatives as a religious zealot, imagine what they’ll do to Mittens.

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Rick Santorum is a bigot who supported bans on homosexual activity in 2003. That alone should disqualify him from further consideration. Santorum also wanted to force public school science classes to teach intelligent design. Santorum said he “wanted to puke” after reading Catholic JFK’s speech about the importance of not applying religious tenets to governing. Santorum apparently thinks he has the personal endorsement of God, and has vowed to, if elected (which won’t happen), speak at length about the dangers of birth control.

These things set him apart from Newt and Mitt. Santorum’s problem is not his faith; Santorum’s problem is that he wants to impose HIS religion on all Americans.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 9:35 AM

just a tip: the “tree height” and the “he has two cars” attacks on Romney are not effective AT ALL. It ranks down there with the “dog on roof” silliness. The fact that the Romney-bashers have to sink to such desperate, embarrassing depths really says a lot. I’m actually embarrassed for them.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:42 AM

if Mr. Santorum is the nominee will all the Romney people on this board vote for Santorum?

I am not a Romney person, and I will not support St. Scrotum if he happens to be the nominee if he goes on rambling about sins of contraception. Even if he doesn’t, my support will be tenuous at best. St, Scrotum’s only redeeming qualities are his immigration policy and Second Amendment, and he better stress it out if he wants my vote. On the first sign of hispandering or softening on gun rights in the general, I’ll bolt to Satan – eh, I mean Obama.

Archivarix on February 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I see your takin tips from small fish now!

Careful how you evaluate them as small fish tend to have even smaller brains!

ConcealedKerry on February 27, 2012 at 9:47 AM

if Mr. Santorum is the nominee will all the Romney people on this board vote for Santorum?

I would. I just hope it doesn’t come to that, because I really don’t think he has a chance against BO.

Syzygy on February 27, 2012 at 9:47 AM

if Mr. Santorum is the nominee will all the Romney people on this board vote for Santorum?

Without question or hesitation but he won’t be the nominee so that’s a pointless hypothetical.

I like Santorum. I like Gingrich. I just don’t think they’ll win. But I’d do anything to make it happen if they get the nomination.

Because I hate Obama. And in this case, hate is good.

Easy choice.

NoDonkey on February 27, 2012 at 9:50 AM

It’s like the 2008 McCain deja vu all over again. Everything is falling into place again, I’m sad to see. Romney throwing money around and buying his way to the nomination, but I hope he’s stopped before it’s too late. We need to offer people something to vote for, not just against Obama who seems to have the Clinton resilience. If the past endorsements/buy-offs from governors like New Jersey fats and Nicki whats-her-face are any indication, I hope we get similar results this time around, too. The good news is that the large southern states are coming up and Mitt’s money can’t trump his record with the grass roots folks. I still have hope the American people and not the republican establishment choose the candidate.

mozalf on February 27, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I agree. It has been disappointing, but enlightening to see how certain of the conservative media have gone completely negative on Romney. I understand the argument, which Ed makes, that supporting Romney in ’08 was different, because he was much more of conservative than McCain……but Levin and even Limbaugh,now try and make the case that there is nothing conservative about Romney, which is patently ridiculous and undermines their credibility in my opinion.

Priscilla on February 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I agree with this. This who anti-Romney non-sense has been orchestrated by the conservative media. And I blame people like Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, etc.. for this non-sense. They riled their listeners/viewers into an anti-Romney position, and the viewers followed.

He was good enough for them in 2008, but not now. And their viewers have blindly followed their positions.

I just hope they have the decency to support Mitt Romney when he is the inevitable nominee. However, I doubt they all will have the class and decency to do it. Critical thinking doesn’t appear to be one of their strengths after all.

milcus on February 27, 2012 at 10:04 AM

It is increasingly obvious the American people will be given the choice in November between the European Socialist from MA Romney (R) or a continuation of the Communist want to be dictator Marxist Obumao (D). Can anyone still wonder why America and the free World is in free-fall?

aposematic on February 27, 2012 at 10:06 AM

empty stadium. that’s all you need to know about Willard’s chances in MI.

james23

It wasn’t meant for an entire stadium. The setup itself would have blocked the view of 3/4s of the stadium.

Zaggs on February 27, 2012 at 10:07 AM

a foreign policy so abysmal

This coming from someone who has failed to conduct scholarly research before choosing to repeat a false message. Ignorance is not bliss. Warfare effecting genocide is being touted as “humanitarian”.

Neoconservative foreign policy is abysmal.

Our Military Personnel Suicide Rate is abysmal.

Consider well the effects from the US invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, then Egypt, Libya, soon to be Syria, Iran according to the propaganda. How many indigenous populations have already experienced genocide throughout the regions that our Military was ordered to attack and “nation build”? There are no more indigenous Christians or Jews in Afghanistan. And the atrocities conducted by Jihadists against their competing Islamic sects, and against Druid and Kurdish populations reflects again on the interventions conducted by our government over the past century in the Middle East. Consider well the immense growth in effective VIOLENT power that Islamic Jihad is amassing, even while Americans are told by our nation’s leaders to accept forever warfare.

Fred Thompson always promoted the wisdom of considering the long term consequences of a policy before adopting and implementing any policy. But Santorum is an imbalanced person, incapable of reaching a comprehensively good judgement, incapable of handling the pressures of the US Presidency, already shouting: “I’ll Attack China!” Just because Iran elected a blowhard (questionable election) hardly means that Americans should respond in kind, as if humanity needs or “deserves” blood thirsty irrational world leaders.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is no different than Barry Goldwater’s traditional Republicanism.

And the only reasons that Goldwater’s POTUS GOP Ticket failed to gain traction were because JFK’s recent assassination swept our nation with grief and the sympathy vote for the LBJ Democrat Ticket, and the media was in the DNC pocket, fabricating false messages characterizing Goldwater as the media portrays Ron Paul now, and misrepresenting LBJ as the “Peace Dove” candidate as Americans were NOT in favor of another “Korean War” futile and devastating IndoChina military intervention in Vietnam/Cambodia. Then, the fear mongering demanded that Americans stop the tide of Communism through Domino Theory interventionist wars — replicated now as if stopping the influence of radical Islamic Jihad through military intervention in the Middle East.

On the effectiveness of America’s “Domino Theory”, aside from having awarded and maintained Communist Red China “MOST Favored Nation” status for trade (China owns much of the US economy including military contracts and US national debt), now the US has allied with Communist Vietnam. Whatever the results were supposed to be, since Eisenhower’s departure from the Presidency, our nation’s Foreign Policy have proven largely abysmal.

And who pays? US Taxpayers whose votes only count when our leadership think appropriate. That’s abysmal.

For the past 50 years, US Policy (both foreign and domestic) hardly functions in the best interest of America, of our Constitutional Republic, of our citizenry.

maverick muse on February 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I will vote and work hard for Mitt if he is the nominee but I just see Obama tearing him to pieces. If we are going down I want to go down with a fighter.

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM

My thoughts exactly. Romney’s PAC might put merciless attack ads against Obama on the airwaves, but Romney vs. Obama in a debate would be the equivalent of Mr. Rogers vs. the Rolling 60′s Neighba’hood Crips in a Compton turf war.

–”You’re a swell guy, Mr. President, you’re just a little bit in over your head.” *solar flare grin*

–”Mr. President, as I’ve told people out on the campaign trail, your healthcare program is nothing to get angry about.” *solar flare grin with a ’50s-era “can-do” thumbs-up*

–”Mr. President, you say you based your healthcare program on my program in Massachusetts–but I have just one thing to ask: Why didn’t you call me first?” *solar flare grin accompanied by strains of the combined theme music to Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best along with the voice-over, “Starring Mitt Romney as Robert Young as Hugh Beaumont as James ‘Jim’ Anderson, Sr., as Ward Cleaver….”*

Mark my words, the above is just a soupçon of the tone Romney will take with Obama in the debates, just as McCain did–all because the establishment cadre of the GOP has feet of clay and routinely plays it safe out of the irrational fear of being labeled “racist” if they say anything untoward about Obama’s policies. And Obama will absolutely take advantage of this and make toast out of Romney’s white-bread ass in the general election accordingly.

But, yeah, rest assured, I’ll be vote for Romney him if he’s the nominee. As feckless as Romney is, I’d like to think that his policies won’t be as bad as Obama’s have been. *dejected sigh*

Dime IV on February 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM

just a tip: the “tree height” and the “he has two cars” attacks on Romney are not effective AT ALL. It ranks down there with the “dog on roof” silliness. The fact that the Romney-bashers have to sink to such desperate, embarrassing depths really says a lot. I’m actually embarrassed for them.

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:42 AM

“Your incredibly pathetic talking points do absolutely nothing to tarnish the full metal AWESOMENESS of CHUCK ROMNEY in my mind! NOTHING! You have come to a heavy artillery fight and brought nothing but foul language, so you LOSE! Your staggering failure to land even a single glancing blow against Romney’s total relentless magnificence in my mind makes me ashamed to be a member of the same species as you! A faceful of bug spray is the only response you merit! Now go crawl back to your nice warm crack in the floorboards where we don’t have to listen to your sobbing, you cockroach!”

/loud-booming-voice

Aitch748 on February 27, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I’m surprised Romney is holding his own in a union-dominated state against the biggest union shill the GOP has been infected with in decades.

EddieC on February 27, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Yeah, well, our own side doesn’t help. I’m just about through with Drudge, and I turned off several conservative talk radio shows, got rid of cable last summer. I watch actual events, listen to the candidates themselves, and I am actually more informed than I was listening to all the noise. I continue to read Hot Air because I like reading the comments from all of you, who make more sense than the so-called experts and advisors who always have an agenda and regurgitate talking points.

lea on February 27, 2012 at 10:21 AM

If we are going down I want to go down with a fighter.

celtic warrior on February 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM

How many candidates have challenged Romney and lost? The entire field is Not-Romney. It is an unholy alliance against one person. And what is the result? Romney has lost ground with each one. He pulled himself up and defeated each one.

Not a fighter?!

csdeven on February 27, 2012 at 10:26 AM

But, yeah, rest assured, I’ll be vote for Romney him if he’s the nominee.

Dime IV on February 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM

That should read, “But yeah, rest assured, I’ll be voting for Romney if he’s the nominee.”

All apologies. Just go back to doing whatever it was that you were doing. ;^)

Dime IV on February 27, 2012 at 10:27 AM

bluegill on February 27, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Exactly!

O/T…isn’t it nice not to have to wade through the paranoid rantings of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade? I am hoping they have gone away permanently!

csdeven on February 27, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Mitt Romney sleeps with a pillow under his gun.

csdeven on February 27, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Rosetta Stone poll released today.

Poll conducted yesterday:

Santorum 37% (33)

Romney 35% (36)

Brackets Feb 23

technopeasant on February 27, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I’m going to be laughing my butt off if Chuck Romney loses to President Urkel.

Aitch748 on February 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Mitt Romney can ride a motor without the cycle.

csdeven on February 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM

I just hope they have the decency to support Mitt Romney when he is the inevitable nominee. However, I doubt they all will have the class and decency to do it. Critical thinking doesn’t appear to be one of their strengths after all.

milcus on February 27, 2012 at 10:04 AM

They’ll do the absolute least they can do because the talkers care more about their ratings and keeping their street cred with their closet case listeners, than they do about the country.

Limbaugh can put the kittens in their cage, stock his private jet with his concubines and leave the country. The rest of us don’t have that option.

NoDonkey on February 27, 2012 at 10:37 AM

isn’t it nice not to have to wade through the paranoid rantings of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade? I am hoping they have gone away permanently!

csdeven on February 27, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Now if we could only rid ourselves of the Pope Hat Brigade…

EddieC on February 27, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The demographics tell the story loud and clear.
Many of us in Michigan are voting for Saint Rick, just to keep Mittens the hell out of the race. Willard is a lying fraud, and a lot of Michiganders know it.

As for AZ, my former home of 30 years, the demographics favor the squish who is a Mormon and a left-of-center ‘Republican’. Enough Democrats and Indies have moved to AZ over the past few decades, it’s disgusting. One reason why I left. When enough migrants elected two homosexers to run the State (Gov. Napolitano and AG Goddard), I knew it was time to go.
And then there’s the illegal Mess’kan mess. My former bastion of liberty has become a dump.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus

You moved to Michigan because AZ was too blue for you? Really?

AZ is purple now. Certain areas are radically blue with others deep red. Karl is correct that blue state loons have moved to AZ in numbers.

Hard Right on February 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Homeland Security added a sixth color to it’s threat level system: Black, meaning Mitt Romney is about to kick 8utt!

csdeven on February 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Priscilla on February 27, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Mitt Romney is a Corporatist. The Republican Party Leadership exercise corporatism, which (though neoconservative) is contrary to the traditional Republican Party platform.

“Conservatism” would conserve tradition.

The only conservatism that applies to Mitt Romney regards his immediate family values.

Those family values are not to be confused with his current Mexican Romney relative polygamous values maintaining the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s “direct revelation from God” to re-establish polygamy as the ONLY way for men/women to attain their highest degree of celestial glory — the mandated doctrinal dogma prior to revisionism. Those family values coincided, btw, with the Mormon United Order of communism to which the Romney family in Mexico obediently participated, another such direct revelation subsequently revised to conform with what is currently politically correct. In the “conservative” sense of preserving authenticity, Mitt Romney is definitely revisionist. However, the irony rests within Romney being a Corporatist, another socialist authoritarian pyramid scheme. Given corrupt ideology, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Regarding small government as “best” and big government as “bad”, Mitt Romney is not such a conservative. In fact, corporatism is a nice word for fascism, the assimilation of industry into government. The corrupt favoritism that inevitably ensues such politically incestuous relations is contrary to the traditional Republican Party “conservative” platform. Also, traditional Republicans do not kneejerk our nation into military interventions. That reactionary policy functions within the neoconservative element.

That voters presently only have two major parties from which to cast a “meaningful” (doubtful) vote, the remnant of conservative Republicans have no reason to vote against Ron Paul, or to forfeit the traditional Republican principles that smaller and limited constitutional governance secures American prosperity at home and abroad through First Principles and a strong Dollar. That is “conservatism”.

maverick muse on February 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM

How many candidates have challenged Romney and lost? The entire field is Not-Romney. It is an unholy alliance against one person. And what is the result? Romney has lost ground with each one. He pulled himself up and defeated each one.

I admire your positive thinking, however, I think Romney is doing horribly considering his much talked about money and organization. He might win because of his money, however, I prefer a candidate who wins because of his beliefs, and moderates don’t believe in anything.

lea on February 27, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Hard Right on February 27, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Traditionally, AZ was split between Republican business v. Democrat agricultural family interests and miners. Since its pioneers were mostly Democrats, AZ Territory part of the Confederacy once upon a time, AZ always had strong Democrat counties.

True enough, AZ first Senators were Democrats Marcus Smith and Henry Ashurst.

maverick muse on February 27, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Rasmussen poll today of Michigan;

Romney 38% (40)

Santorum 36% (34)

Brackets Feb 22 right after the debate

Poll conducted yesterday.

technopeasant on February 27, 2012 at 10:51 AM

He might win because of his money, however, I prefer a candidate who wins because of his beliefs, and moderates don’t believe in anything.

lea on February 27, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Unfortunately, the only candidate who believes in limited government wants to fight Iran with gift baskets.

EddieC on February 27, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Rasmussen poll today of Michigan;

Romney 38% (40)

Santorum 36% (34)

Brackets Feb 22 right after the debate

Poll conducted yesterday.

technopeasant on February 27, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I believe these results exclude early voters.

Priscilla on February 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM

How many candidates have challenged Romney and lost?

csdeven on February 27, 2012 at 10:26 AM

In the 2011/2012 GOP primaries? A few.

Overall throughout Romney’s political career? None, except for one.

Again, you can bet your bottom dollar that I’ll willingly be pulling that lever for him come November 6. But that doesn’t change the fact that he just doesn’t instill confidence in me that he’ll be anything other than weak as water in debating and speaking out against his opponent–the same as Dole in 1996 and McCain in 2008.

And I can say unreservedly that not one whit of my opinion is predicated on what Rush Limbaugh or his contemporaries say; frankly, I don’t give the moon and a sixpence what any talking head says. I trust myself in forming my own opinions, and, based on empirical observation, my opinion about the outcome of a 2012 presidential general election between Obama and Romney is based on the results of “the same ol’ same ol’” naïve, short-sighted strategy of the establishment cadre of the GOP in the past.

I think that’s what a lot of Romney’s critics here on Hot Air are basically saying, cs; it’s not a deathwish; in fact, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that no one here actually wants to see Romney go down in flames against Obama. If anything, I think we’re all pretty much in agreement that we can’t wait to see Obama go down in flames in a mandate landslide. But Romney–not his PAC–but Romney himself doesn’t make it easy for a lot of people here to have high hopes that that will happen. No harm, no foul; it’s just a difference of opinion–not a difference of hope in the ultimate outcome.

Dime IV on February 27, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3