PPP: Santorum up by 10 among election-day voters in MI

posted at 8:40 am on February 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How close will tonight’s contests in Arizona and Michigan be?  The Arizona primary looks so much like a blowout for Mitt Romney that the Arizona Republic didn’t bother to write a front-page story about it, only offering a not about checking the paper’s website for election results later tonight.  Michigan will be the battleground tonight, and Public Policy Polling says that Rick Santorum may have recaptured the momentum over the weekend — but with a twist:

It’s always good to be cautious with one night poll numbers, but momentum seems to be swinging in Santorum’s direction. Romney led with those interviewed on Sunday, but Santorum has a 39-34 advantage with folks polled on Monday. The best sign that things have gone back toward Santorum might be that with those polled today who hadn’t already voted, Santorum’s advantage was 41-31.

Much has been made of Democratic efforts to turn out the vote for Santorum and we see evidence that’s actually happening. Romney leads with actual Republican voters, 43-38. But Santorum’s up 47-10 with Democratic voters, and even though they’re only 8% of the likely electorate that’s enough to put him over the top. The big question now is whether those folks will actually bother to show up and vote tomorrow.

It’s not all due to Operation Chaos, or Insanity, or whatever it’s called.  Romney may have booted Michigan over the weekend:

Romney hasn’t made a good last impression on Michigan voters. His favorability in Sunday interviews was 57/36, but in Monday interviews it was only 47/48. Santorum saw little difference in his reviews between the two days: 54/39 on Sunday and 56/36 on Monday. If Romney does indeed end up losing tomorrow there’s not much doubt he will have blown it in the final 48 hours.

It might also be that Santorum has been emphasizing economics the last few days in Michigan.  He took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to compare tax plans.  Santorum borrowed Newt Gingrich’s criticism that Romney only wants to tinker around the edges, and added a swipe at Romney’s “last-minute conversion” to tax reform as well as repeating the accusation of Romney being an “Occupy Wall Street” candidate:

Meanwhile, my opponent in the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney, had a last-minute conversion. Attempting to distract from his record of tax and fee increases as governor of Massachusetts, poor job creation, and aggressive pursuit of earmarks, he now says he wants to follow my lead and lower individual as well as corporate marginal tax rates.

It’s a good start. But it doesn’t go nearly far enough. He says his proposed tax cuts would be revenue neutral and, borrowing the language of Occupy Wall Street, promises the top 1% will pay for the cuts. No pro-growth tax policy there, just more Obama-style class warfare.

Will this be enough to carry Michigan over the lead Romney presumably has built in early voting?  Having a ten-point advantage on Election Day would be significant if it remains, especially since only 17% of PPP’s sample say they have voted early — but Romney has a 27-point lead among them, 56/29.  Assuming that the Monday-only numbers and the early voting figures from PPP are accurate and predictive, a turnout like the one in 2008 would result in a narrow victory for Santorum, 38.9% to 35.2%.  That would produce a nearly even split in delagates, but give Santorum a boost heading into Super Tuesday.  If he can’t close the deal in Michigan, then next week will be a very tough sell.


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 4

You betcha’. Every real genius knows how the writers here kowtow to the establishment.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Santorum is the establishment. So are Romney and Newt.

Didn’t Michelle Malkin, who used to own this site, also support Santorum? Also, since when did Michelle tell Ed who he could support?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Yes, she did. Another faux conservative letting the mask slip.

The point isn’t that Ed can’t support whom he wishes; the point is that Mr. Morrissey calls himself both a conservative and a Catholic, but he has deliberately ignored Santorum’s support of Planned Parenthood, which was pretty public after his endorsement.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I might have to check that out. I imagine this place might feel pretty depleted if Romney wins Michigan tonight.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Even if Romney edges out Santorum, it won’t be by much. There’s a fair chance this could go on for a long time. If Romney loses Michigan, it’ll be a big embarrassment. Some of his establishment supporters might jump ship.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Rush is trying to say since Romney used negative ads, somehow it it OK for Santorum to get Dems to vote in the Republican primary against the candidate more unpalatable to them – Romney. He also says it’s OK because no one expected Santorum to get this far.

Weak argument. If Romney wins AZ and MI tonight Rush will be crushed.

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Here’s an idea, start your own site. Whining here doesn’t seem to be working.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM

The point isn’t that Ed can’t support whom he wishes; the point is that Mr. Morrissey calls himself both a conservative and a Catholic, but he has deliberately ignored Santorum’s support of Planned Parenthood, which was pretty public after his endorsement.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

My comment was a reply to the statement made directly below, which does imply that Ed sold out to the new ownership to support Santorum.

Yet further evidence as to why this site has been going to hell in a handbasket since it got bought out by Town Hall.

JFS61 on February 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Note: Ed wrote an article explaining why he supports Santorum. I support Newt, but I believe Ed is an honest man who reached a different conclusion than I did. You’re unjustly attacking his integrity.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM

mozalf on February 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM

You don’t have your facts right. Mitt Romney won the biggest primary yet, Floria (a CLOSED primary), by a huge amount. Also, Romney leads among Republicans in Michigan. Many Democrats are going for Santorum in Michigan because they want to give Barack Obama an easy opponent. The challenge for Republicans today will be to outvote the dirty trick-playing Democrats, who would love nothing more than to face a bigot like Rick Santorum, who wouldn’t even be able to win more than 4 or 5 states in a general election.

A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Obama’s Re-Election

Sadly for the Democrats, Mitt Romney WILL be the nominee and he will defeat Obama.

Let’s have a recap of the popular vote totals:

#1 – Mitt Romney: 1,121,800
Newt Gingrich: 838,839
Ron Paul: 308,186
Unelectable bigot Rick Santorum: 432,010

Romney continues to do well among all ideological and other demographic categories.

Go Mitt!!

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Here’s an idea, start your own site. Whining here doesn’t seem to be working.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Aw, puddin’

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Note: Ed wrote an article explaining why he supports Santorum. I support Newt, but I believe Ed is an honest man who reached a different conclusion than I did. You’re unjustly attacking his integrity.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Yes, and it was after that article was written when Santorum openly bragged about funding Planned Parenthood. I doubt Ed or Tina missed it, but there hasn’t been a mention here.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Ed Morrissey has decided to support a homophobic bigot (Rick Santorum) with no chance of winning a national election.

Shameful.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Shameful.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Yeah! And if you had an ounce of integrity you would boycott.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Yes, and it was after that article was written when Santorum openly bragged about funding Planned Parenthood. I doubt Ed or Tina missed it, but there hasn’t been a mention here.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Are you referring to this: Paul Ad Wrongly Implies Santorum Supports Planned Parenthood?

If not, please provide me with a link to what you are referring too/

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Ed Morrissey has decided to support a homophobic bigot (Rick Santorum) with no chance of winning a national election.

Shameful.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Where’s the ban hammer when it’s really needed?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Maybe because LifeNews debunked it last week after Ron Paul launched that attack.

Ed Morrissey

Sorry Ed, thats not a “debunk”. The ad said he supported Planned Parenthood. This is what your article says “The ad lists different funding measures Santorum supported as a member of the Senate and makes the claim that, by voting for an overall budget bill that funded the federal government that contained Title X funding, Santorum supposedly supports Planned Parenthood’s abortion agenda.”. Did Santorum vote for Title X? Yes. The Paul ad is fact. Santorum trying to roll back history does not negate the fact he voted in favor of Title X. Even santorum admits he voted for it.

Zaggs on February 28, 2012 at 9:08 AM

The whole attack is a transparent attempt to take a compromise Santorum accepted and pretend that it was his goal. Note how quickly the same people who claim that Santorum is a rigid statist theocrat always trying to legislate his moral views will suddenly flip around and call him an unprincipled hypocrite.

You can always cherry-pick a legislators voting record to find individual votes that make him look bad. But look at his whole record, and there’s no doubt which side he’s on. And it’s a side that Romney didn’t pretend to join until it was politically advantageous for him.

It’s a waste of time for Romney supporters to attack Santorum for being one 99 and 44/100ths pure on pro-life issues when Romney’s record is so much worse.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Ed Morrissey will occasionally descend into the comment section to post sarcastic, insulting and sometimes juvenile little comments to readers, but don’t expect him to respond to much of the feedback or criticism. His disappointing behavior in interacting with his readers stands in contrast with his sycophantic interview style, particularly when he’s talking with people he apparently regards as important.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Yes, and it was after that article was written when Santorum openly bragged about funding Planned Parenthood. I doubt Ed or Tina missed it, but there hasn’t been a mention here.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Here’s what a balanced discussion of the topic looks like, you troll.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/27/romney-and-opportunism/

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Where’s the ban hammer when it’s really needed?

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Rick Santorum IS a homophobic bigot, and Ed Morrissey HAS supported Rick Santorum.

What’s bad is you calling for someone to be banned for doing nothing wrong.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Are you referring to this: Paul Ad Wrongly Implies Santorum Supports Planned Parenthood?

If not, please provide me with a link to what you are referring too/

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM

The Paul ad was not wrong, but no, I’m referring to this:

SANTORUM: Well, good. I — you know, just look at my record. I mean, I have been criticized by — by — I think it was Governor Romney or maybe it was Congressman Paul’s campaign for voting for contraception, that I voted for funding for it, which is — I think it’s — I think it’s Title 10, which is — which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations, even like Planned Parenthood.

And so, you know, it’s funny that on the conservative side, I’m getting ripped for having voted for this.

link

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:10 PM

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Then if you want to insult him directly, may I suggest you cut and paste your diatribes into an email.

We know you are good at cutting and pasting.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Shameful.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Yeah! And if you had an ounce of integrity you would boycott.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Pleeeese boycott you are doing damage to your cause by spouting your ignorant, small-minded opinions. A compassionate fisherman would throw you on the shore for the herons to devour.

Fuquay Steve on February 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I’m hearing that crossovers are voting for Santorum. He won’t get those votes in the fall.

Kind of like Rush’s operation chaos in the Dem primaries in 2008.

EconomicNeocon on February 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

What’s bad is you calling for someone to be banned for doing nothing wrong.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Besides, if nutballs like you weren’t around, somebody would have to invent you. just for the entertainment value.

cozmo on February 28, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Ed Morrissey will occasionally descend into the comment section to post sarcastic, insulting and sometimes juvenile little comments to readers, but don’t expect him to respond to much of the feedback or criticism. His disappointing behavior in interacting with his readers stands in contrast with his sycophantic interview style, particularly when he’s talking with people he apparently regards as important.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I can’t wait for ED to reply to your sarcastic, insulting and juvenile comments. Clearly, the only one you suck up to is Mittens.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Maybe because LifeNews debunked it last week after Ron Paul launched that attack.

Ed Morrissey on February 28, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Sorry, Ed; I missed your response.

LifeNews did not debunk it. And why haven’t you responded to the direct quotes Santorum has made, specifically his boasting of supporting Planned Parenthood? Santorum in his own words:

SANTORUM: Well, good. I — you know, just look at my record. I mean, I have been criticized by — by — I think it was Governor Romney or maybe it was Congressman Paul’s campaign for voting for contraception, that I voted for funding for it, which is — I think it’s — I think it’s Title 10, which is — which I have voted for in the past, that provides for free contraception through organizations, even like Planned Parenthood.

And so, you know, it’s funny that on the conservative side, I’m getting ripped for having voted for this.


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2012/02/17/santorum-defends-moral-versus-political-stance-contraception-while-caught-crossfire-super

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:15 PM

And by the way, that televised Santorum interview was on February 16. The Paul ad came out less than a week ago.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Ed Morrissey will occasionally descend into the comment section to post sarcastic, insulting and sometimes juvenile little comments to readers, but don’t expect him to respond to much of the feedback or criticism. His disappointing behavior in interacting with his readers stands in contrast with his sycophantic interview style, particularly when he’s talking with people he apparently regards as important.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM

This was the point of my earlier post in regards to the TH takeover of the site, as while AP certainly enjoyed tweaking noses or goring sacred cows on occasion in the past, he never resorted to mean-spiritedness or intellectual dishonesty to support his point of view, as has Ed with the Santorum/Planned Parenthood issue.

JFS61 on February 28, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:10 PM

The way I understand Santorum’s remarks is that he’s talking about contraception, not abortion. He’s trying to tell people that he doesn’t oppose contraception. Admittedly, when you mention Planned Parenthood, it’s hard to separate the two activities because they use the profits of abortion to fund other activities. It would have been better if he hadn’t mentioned Planned Parenthood. Still, his overall record in opposing abortion is clear. I don’t think he’s changing his mind on either abortion or contraception. It was a poor way of expressing himself, but political candidates sometimes trip all over themselves in giving interviews.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The only real story here is the absolute, complete debunking of the myth that Democrats want to face Romney in the general.

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Absolute, complete debunking? From one data point? You’re a little quick to jump to that conclusion.

The obvious rejoinder is that Democrats wanted to face Reagan in 1980 as well. Oops.

In fact, what your whole argument boils down to is that you see the world the same way that Democrats do, and think no one will vote for the conservative.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

The way I understand Santorum’s remarks is that he’s talking about contraception, not abortion. He’s trying to tell people that he doesn’t oppose contraception. Admittedly, when you mention Planned Parenthood, it’s hard to separate the two activities because they use the profits of abortion to fund other activities. It would have been better if he hadn’t mentioned Planned Parenthood. Still, his overall record in opposing abortion is clear. I don’t think he’s changing his mind on either abortion or contraception. It was a poor way of expressing himself, but political candidates sometimes trip all over themselves in giving interviews.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:26 PM

It would have been better if he hadn’t mentioned PP??? For him, maybe.

It adds up to Santorum voting to fund Planned Parenthood no matter how you slice it and no matter how he tries to wrap it, and he was bragging about it. Watch the video:

Santorum video

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Even if Romney edges out Santorum, it won’t be by much. There’s a fair chance this could go on for a long time. If Romney loses Michigan, it’ll be a big embarrassment. Some of his establishment supporters might jump ship.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Why, because he had to beg Democrats to vote for him, and they complied because they don’t want Obama to face a challenger who can beat him?

If Rick Santorum wins tonight by the margin of Democratic voters, it says next to nothing.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

In fact, what your whole argument boils down to is that you see the world the same way that Democrats do, and think no one will vote for the conservative.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Santorum, Romeny, and Newt are not conservatives.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Santorum, Romeny, and Newt are not conservatives.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Well, neither are you. So what’s your point?

AJsDaddie on February 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM

But if you think Santorum’s vote for pro-choice liberal Arlen Specter was okay, then you can’t have a problem with Mitt Romney’s vote for Paul Tsongas.

mountainaires on February 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I thought Specter was a Republican Senator from Santorum’s own state, who he presumably was expected to show some loyalty for, while Tsongas was a Democrat?

There goes your “no difference” meme.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I can’t wait for ED to reply to your sarcastic, insulting and juvenile comments. Clearly, the only one you suck up to is Mittens.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I wish he wouldn’t. I have no need to engage with the man nor to lower myself to his level.

Ed Morrissey can post whatever he wants and can support whatever unelectable homophobic bigots he wants.

He’ll have to live with that.

I would prefer to focus the discussion on Rick Santorum and his unsuitability for the nomination, since we all know that A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Barack Obama’s Re-Election

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I’ve posted my position before. Santorum has a few redeeming points, namely immigration and 2nd Amendment. If he is nominated, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt – right up to the moment when he starts hispandering or softening on gun rights. Then I’ll bolt to Obama. I value my religious freedom much higher than I do my wallet.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM

So, you would vote for Obama to protect your religious freedom? The same Obama trying to force Catholic institutions to pay for contraceptives and abortion services that they have religious objections to? That Obama?

tom on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

It would have been better if he hadn’t mentioned PP??? For him, maybe.

It adds up to Santorum voting to fund Planned Parenthood no matter how you slice it and no matter how he tries to wrap it, and he was bragging about it. Watch the video:

Santorum video

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

This is the same deal as Romney saying: “I like to fire people” or “I don’t care about the poor.” These candidates say the stupidest things sometimes. The context of his remarks is contraception, not abortion. Again, he should never have brought up Planned Parenthood, but his overall position on abortion is clear. In fact it’s so clear that some of the posters here call him a theocrat.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

JFS61 on February 28, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Yes, I noticed the same thing. You aren’t alone.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I wish he wouldn’t. I have no need to engage with the man nor to lower myself to his level.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

When you have your head permanently stuck up Romney’s butt, up and down look reversed.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:20 AM

What I don’t understand, is that Palin was considered “unelectable” to the Indies, but Ricky, with his anti-gay stance, and his anti-contraception stance, if more “electable”??? Hell, Palin got grilled for her religious convictions, when she hadnt even advanced them….unlike Ricky, who wears his religion on his sleeve, or sweater-vest, proclaiming that he’s a “CHRISTIAN, VOTE FOR ME” to all who can see…

lovingmyUSA on February 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

This is the same deal as Romney saying: “I like to fire people” or “I don’t care about the poor.” These candidates say the stupidest things sometimes. The context of his remarks is contraception, not abortion. Again, he should never have brought up Planned Parenthood, but his overall position on abortion is clear. In fact it’s so clear that some of the posters here call him a theocrat.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Nowhere close to being analogous.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Nowhere close to being analogous.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Then you explain it to me.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Absolute, complete debunking? From one data point? You’re a little quick to jump to that conclusion.

The obvious rejoinder is that Democrats wanted to face Reagan in 1980 as well. Oops.

In fact, what your whole argument boils down to is that you see the world the same way that Democrats do, and think no one will vote for the conservative.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Democrats are actively engaged in ensuring that Romney does not win the nomination. So can you provide examples of where they were actively engaged in this way to ensure Reagan didn’t get the nomination in 1980?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say about my whole argument having to do with me seeing “the world the same way that Democrats do”. My argument boils down to exactly what I said above – Democrats are actively engaged in ensuring Romney does not get the nomination.

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

JFS61 on February 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Note: Ed wrote an article explaining why he supports Santorum. I support Newt, but I believe Ed is an honest man who reached a different conclusion than I did. You’re unjustly attacking his integrity.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Obviously, JF never knew Ed when he had his blog as Captains Quarters…I would trust Ed’s integrity over ANY friciing “commenter” here…
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003148.php

I love these “Johnny-come-latelies” to the political blogoshpere…

lovingmyUSA on February 28, 2012 at 2:11 PM

NThen you explain it to me.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM

What is there to explain? Santorum voted to fund Planned Patenthood, he brags about it, and you’re trying to make excuses due to cognitive dissonance.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Oh bluefish, you’re P–nis Envy is strong–that little blue pill you have been taking must be working…You do know if it lasts for more than 8 hrs, you should see a doctor–right?

lovingmyUSA on February 28, 2012 at 2:15 PM

The notion that Romney = Obama Lite is dying hard. Romney is openly opposed to the hundreds of regulations, fees, subsidies, excise taxes, exchanges, and rule-setting boards established in Obamacare. This is not an isolated position, since he is also opposed to the myriads of other business-stifling regulations imposed by the current administration.

The parallel notion that he is a spineless flip-flopper with no principles who will roll over and play dead for an utra-liberal Congress is ridiculous. In Massachussetts he wasn’t afraid to veto legislation even when he was fully aware that it would be overridden, and even when he knew that opposition to the legislature would probably cost him his chances to be re-elected governor (as it did).

His opposition to the auto bailout and his proposal to repeal Davis-Bacon practically guarantee that, unlike Obama, he won’t get the endorsement of the AFL-CIO or the SEIU. The various charges against Romney may seem persuasive individually, but they are inconsistent with each other.

In contrast, Santorum’s open courting of Reagan Democrats and the union vote before he has fully won the support of Reagan Republicans, and his self-confessed willingness to sacrifice his pro-life and conservative principles in order to “take one for the team” are telling arguments against him as being more staunchly conservative than Romney.

Confutus on February 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM

1) As much as we all love to hate the mandate, it is the ONLY way to balance the sheet. As long as hospitals are forced at gunpoint to provide services to indigents, they must in turn force healthy people to chip in. EMTALA is the root of evil here, and I wish the candidates spoke more of it.

Archivarix on February 28, 2012 at 11:36 AM

EMTALA does not force hospitals to provide services for free. EMTALA requires providing emergency services only without regard to ability to pay. This does not mean that they must provide the services for free. They can still bill the person, and take all the usual debt collection measures. All EMTALA requires is that you can’t refuse to give someone emergency treatment because they can’t pay.

The scope matters tremendously, because EMTALA is used as an excuse to force an individual mandate on every person in existence for all health care needs, not just emergency care, and not just catastrophic care.

It’s a straw man argument. There are other ways to cover the costs hospitals have to eat with EMTALA when they are unable to collect without forcing all taxpayers into a contract with terms they didn’t choose for services they may not even need.

Romneycare was not a conservative solution, or a free-market solution, or a small-government solution, and the notion that it was “the only way” is an argument only acceptable to political spinners and those gullible enough to believe them.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM

JFS61 on February 28, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Yes, I noticed the same thing. You aren’t alone.

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Trolls of a feather, hand together..you guys would be cute in another time frame…Now…not so much. Hell, you don’t even provide entertainment value…

lovingmyUSA on February 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

In fact, what your whole argument boils down to is that you see the world the same way that Democrats do, and think no one will vote for the conservative.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Santorum, Romeny, and Newt are not conservatives.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

There’s your confusion. It’s Ron Paul who is not a conservative.

Santorum and Gingrich are conservatives, though imperfect. Gingrich is brilliant, but has many more defections from conservatism than Santorum.

Romney is a moderate Republican — a sub-classification of “liberal” — trying to pretend to be a conservative until he can win the primary and tell everyone how “moderate” he is.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 1:55 PM

What is there to explain? Santorum voted to fund Planned Patenthood, he brags about it, and you’re trying to make excuses due to cognitive dissonance.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Are you done with that dead chicken yet..? ‘Cause I have more if you need them–with all the humping you are doing for Mittens, or is it Doktor Tinfoil–I may have to go out of state for my chickens…

lovingmyUSA on February 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Democrats are actively engaged in ensuring that Romney does not win the nomination. So can you provide examples of where they were actively engaged in this way to ensure Reagan didn’t get the nomination in 1980?

I have no idea what you’re trying to say about my whole argument having to do with me seeing “the world the same way that Democrats do”. My argument boils down to exactly what I said above – Democrats are actively engaged in ensuring Romney does not get the nomination.

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

1) Democrats think that a conservative is unelectable, and the strongest Republican candidate is a moderate.

2) Romney supporters think that a conservative is unelectable, and that the strongest Republican candidate is a moderate.

3) Ergo, Romney supporters think like Democrats.

QED.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

What is there to explain? Santorum voted to fund Planned Patenthood, he brags about it, and you’re trying to make excuses due to cognitive dissonance.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM


I assure you that my cognitive is not in dissonace.

I read the article, not just the quote you provided. Santorum is talking about contraception. It’s still a stupid remark because Planned Parenthood uses money from abortion to fund other activities. What Santorum did was open his mouth wide and stick his foot in it. He doesn’t support abortion and that won’t change.

BTW, if you want to insult me, you’ll have to do a lot better than cognitive dissonance. Santorum isn’t even my candidate. I have no emotional investment in him. I know that playing gotcha can be fun, but look at the context of his remarks.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Democrats are actively engaged in ensuring that Romney does not win the nomination. So can you provide examples of where they were actively engaged in this way to ensure Reagan didn’t get the nomination in 1980?

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Just a point of history. Democrats wanted Reagan to get the nomination. Up till the debates, Carter led Reagan by a substantial amount. When the debates showed that Reagan could be reasonable, then the public took Reagan seriously. When America went to the voting booth, they decided they had enough of Carter. The rest you know.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Oh dear, time to get off. Bye.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM

You don’t have your facts right. Mitt Romney won the biggest primary yet, Floria (a CLOSED primary), by a huge amount. Also, Romney leads among Republicans in Michigan. Many Democrats are going for Santorum in Michigan because they want to give Barack Obama an easy opponent. The challenge for Republicans today will be to outvote the dirty trick-playing Democrats, who would love nothing more than to face a bigot like Rick Santorum, who wouldn’t even be able to win more than 4 or 5 states in a general election.

A Vote for Rick Santorum in the Primary = A Vote for Obama’s Re-Election

Sadly for the Democrats, Mitt Romney WILL be the nominee and he will defeat Obama.

Let’s have a recap of the popular vote totals:

#1 – Mitt Romney: 1,121,800
Newt Gingrich: 838,839
Ron Paul: 308,186
Unelectable bigot Rick Santorum: 432,010

Romney continues to do well among all ideological and other demographic categories.

Go Mitt!!

bluegill on February 28, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Why do the Romney supporters think the overall vote totals matter? What matters is who wins the most delegates at the end of the day, and what matters in the fall is who can win the states that Bush won in 2004. So far, I think either of the top 3 stooges could do that, but it will require a LOT of work.

Also, Mitt won the CLOSED FL primary after he and his superpac spent 30 million dollars excoriating Gingrich. That campaign strategy and tactic will not work state by state because even Romney is not that rich. Romney is overlooking that he needs an enthusiastic base to help him in the fall. So far, he is alienating the very people he needs.

karenhasfreedom on February 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Also, regarding the MI vote. Remember, this is a primary where delegates are assigned to the top vote getter in each of the 14 congressional districts. 2 per district and only 2 for the overall statewide vote winner.

Romney’s support is thin outside of the detroit area. There are 9 congressional districts outside of the detroit area. My prediction is that the most Romney will get in delegates is going to be 12 of the 30 today here in MI.

The polls don’t matters as much as WHERE did they poll the people? If they concentrated their polling in the SE part of the state, they are going to get a bias toward Romney. If the get most of their polling peeps outside of the detroit area, the statistical bias will be for Santorum. It is what it is here, folks.

karenhasfreedom on February 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

1) Democrats think that a conservative is unelectable, and the strongest Republican candidate is a moderate.

So?

2) Romney supporters think that a conservative is unelectable, and that the strongest Republican candidate is a moderate.

Says who? I’m a Romney supporter and I certainly don’t think a conservative is unelectable. Nor do I think that Santorum is unelectable. I just think he’s unqualified compared to Romney. I will happily support him should he get the nomination.

3) Ergo, Romney supporters think like Democrats.

QED.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Complete and total fail because you seem to assume you know how everyone else thinks. Quit assuming.

gotsig on February 28, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Maybe, just maybe, Michagan will wake up and innoculate enough of themselves to have dodged the dreaded LEMMING disease, MHIT-For-Brains!?! MHIT-For-Brains ROBS normally clear-thinking folks of any semblence of common sense, and causes them to vote for LIBERALS!! C’mon Michigan!! AVOID MHIT-For-Brains!?!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 28, 2012 at 4:27 PM

There’s your confusion. It’s Ron Paul who is not a conservative.

Santorum and Gingrich are conservatives, though imperfect. Gingrich is brilliant, but has many more defections from conservatism than Santorum.

Romney is a moderate Republican — a sub-classification of “liberal” — trying to pretend to be a conservative until he can win the primary and tell everyone how “moderate” he is.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 2:23 PM

There’s no confusion. Ron Paul is the only conservative in the race. There isn’t a single position or vote of his that reflects otherwise. The same cannot be said for the other three.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I read the article, not just the quote you provided. Santorum is talking about contraception. It’s still a stupid remark because Planned Parenthood uses money from abortion to fund other activities. What Santorum did was open his mouth wide and stick his foot in it. He doesn’t support abortion and that won’t change.

BTW, if you want to insult me, you’ll have to do a lot better than cognitive dissonance. Santorum isn’t even my candidate. I have no emotional investment in him. I know that playing gotcha can be fun, but look at the context of his remarks.

Gladtobehere on February 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

That’s irrelevant. He voted to fund Planned Parenthood, and he bragged about it. There is no getting around it.

Dante on February 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Hey Bluegill, your boy RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) LIED and LIED all over Florida about Gingrich (see “What REALLY Happened To The Gingrich Ethics Case?” by Byron York, Townhall.com 2/6/12), which makes your boy Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name), a CHEAT and a THIEF as well. These are Axelrod tactics, which makes Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) a LIBERAL WEASAL!?!

Colatteral Damage on February 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Of course, the Democrats are only voting for Santorum because they believe he would lose handily to Obama in the general election.

thatsafactjack on February 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM

If that is so, then let’s show them that they are wrong(which they are), and bring REAL change back to Washington. Change which doesn’t endanger the foundations of our country.
I honestly don’t think Romney has the will to make this country great again. He is too wishy-washy and will go where the political tides lead him, which is, more of the same.

Sterling Holobyte on February 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Hey Bluegill, your boy RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) LIED and LIED all over Florida about Gingrich (see “What REALLY Happened To The Gingrich Ethics Case?” by Byron York, Townhall.com 2/6/12), which makes your boy Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name), a CHEAT and a THIEF as well. These are Axelrod tactics, which makes Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) a LIBERAL WEASAL!?

We Mittbots have to lie cause the base refuses to accept reality\

gerry-mittbot-non truth teller

gerrym51 on February 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

only offering a not about checking the paper’s website for election results later tonight

The “not” in that sentence should be “note”. :) :) :)

Theophile on February 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4