Rasmussen national poll puts Romney up 16 over Santorum

posted at 11:35 am on March 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Two weeks ago, Rick Santorum rode a three-state sweep to a 12-point lead in Rasmussen’s last national survey of likely Republican-primary voters.  Two days after Mitt Romney won a two-state sweep, Rasmussen’s latest poll shows him with a 16-point lead over Santorum and a lot of momentum:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, coming off his primary wins in Arizona and Michigan, has jumped to a 16-point lead over Rick Santorum in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters shows Romney with 40% support to 24% for the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania. This is Romney’s biggest lead to date and the highest level of support any GOP candidate has earned in regular surveying of the race. Two weeks ago, it was Santorum 39%, Romney 27%.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich earns 16% support, closely followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 12%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided. The new findings mark virtually no change in national support for Gingrich and Paul.

The internals are just about what one would expect.  There is, interestingly, no real gender gap; the 16-point margin occurs among men and women alike.  Santorum wins among “very conservative” voters, but only barely outside the margin of error now at six points (39/33).  Romney has a 15-point lead among Republicans, and an 18-point lead among independents. Romney now edges Santorum by four among Tea Party voters (34/30) and by 25 among non-supporters of the Tea Party.  Although Santorum still has a double-digit lead among evangelicals (38/28), Romney wins Protestants by 19 points and Catholics by 27 points.

The continuing presence of Newt Gingrich as an option doesn’t have much impact on this dynamic.  In a hypothetical two-man race, Romney beats Santorum by twelve with a majority at 50/38.  Santorum is still seen very favorably by likely voters at 63/32, but Romney’s favorables now exceed Santorum’s, 71/25.  Romney does even better with Republicans, 74/23, as does Santorum with a 66/28.

The momentum shift comes at the worst possible time for Santorum.  He’s claiming that a tie in delegate allocations in Michigan should give him some credit for a victory in the state, but so far voters seem to be shifting towards the popular-vote winner.  With only five days between now and Super Tuesday, Santorum will be facing stiff headwinds in his attempt to keep Romney from re-establishing his inevitability argument and pushing Republicans to get on the bandwagon to bring the contested primaries to an end.  In response, Santorum can point to the whipsaw volatility in the polling over the last few weeks to show that it’s not over until someone gets a majority, but in order to maintain that argument, Santorum has to win some primaries, and soon.


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

The question we should be asking is, Will Romney use every tool he has at his disposal to fight for full and complete repeal of the ObamaCare monstrosity, or will he just sit back and wait? Will he be willing to expend any political capital on this fight?

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 12:36 PM

If you don’t know the answers to those questions, then perhaps you should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyjnzJtQPD8

Romney in his own words explaining how he will get rid of Obamacare. As I posted above, the discussion on Obamacare begins at the 1:11 point.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 12:51 PM

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 12:48 PM

The non-conservative element of the GOP, which consists mostly of people hostile to the Tea Party, going full-bore on an un-vetted Mitt back in early 2011 as the “presumptive nominee” didn’t help.

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Ye of a small mind. The United States of America died today with the release of this poll …

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Take a deep breath. It’ll be ok. Kleenex?

Foxhound on March 1, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 12:50 PM

The fix is in. The Jeb Bush for 2016 crowd will “throw the fight” and act like fifth columnists as they sabotage Romney’s campaign.

The media propaganda will be 10 times worse than 2008.

Mitt Romney will replace Sarah Palin as the most hated Republican.

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Santorum screwed himself by declaring he was going to win Michigan. Instead of a strikingly close race in Romney’s native state and a delegate split being the big story, it was instead Santorum’s collapse with ill-timed controversies and gaffes and a weak debate performance, capped by a desperate appeal to Democrats to help him against Romney, which became the news.

Now Ohio is make-or-break for him. If he doesn’t win there and at least another couple of states next week, he’s just done. Santorum can linger longer, he started out running on a shoestring budget, but you can’t mount a national effort like that.

But his poll numbers are beginning to look familiar. Just like Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich before him, Santorum soared out of the pack to take a national lead briefly, then fell back to earth like a stone. His trajectory is down, sharply.

Adjoran on March 1, 2012 at 12:54 PM

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Give me a break! Romney is no socialist and HE is the ONLY candidate on either side qualified to sit in the Oval Office! I have NO IDEA where some of you get this fear of Romney. The guy is a straight up conservative that fought for conservative ideas and principles. Cut taxes, increased 2nd Amendment rights in MA, increased pay for VET’s, eliminated a 3 BILLION deficit, DEFENDED traditional marriage and testified before the Senate, etc…You can go on and on about the MA Healthcare bill, but that was passed by the people and the people in MA still approve of it. Do I approve of it? No. But I do not live in MA and I would have likely had MY OWN INSURANCE if I lived there so the bill would have not affected me. Also those insurance plans are PRIVATE insurance plans and you have NINE of them to choose from? How many plans does Obama offer that are private?

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Yo, Myron, did you check this out?

Yes, he has. Many times. Here’s just one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyjnzJtQPD8

The discussion on Obamacare begins at the 1:11 point.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Or are you continuing to cover your ears and insisting it never happened?

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Do not underestimate the “eff it” factor on Tuesday. I think a lot of GOP voters recognize that at this point we’re more likely to ruin our chances of defeating Obama than we are to ruin Romney’s chances of winning the nomination. A lot of people are going to pull the lever in favor ending this pointless struggle.

EricW on March 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM

But his poll numbers are beginning to look familiar. Just like Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich before him, Santorum soared out of the pack to take a national lead briefly, then fell back to earth like a stone. His trajectory is down, sharply.

Adjoran on March 1, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Yeah, but Newt seems to be on the rise again: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Foxhound on March 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Do not underestimate the “eff it” factor on Tuesday. I think a lot of GOP voters recognize that at this point we’re more likely to ruin our chances of defeating Obama than we are to ruin Romney’s chances of winning the nomination. A lot of people are going to pull the lever in favor ending this pointless struggle.

EricW on March 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM

If voting my conscience is classified as an “eff it” vote, then so be it.

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Can’t stand Romney – nor many of his supporters on this blog from the way they have conducted themselves the last few months. In any event, should Romney buy the nomination I’ll only vote for him if he has a constitutional conservative on the ticket with him. He puts a squish like himself on there, and I’m doing a write-in and voting for conservatives down-ticket–and after that, I am officially taking myself out of the republican party. I’ve had enough of it.

KickandSwimMom on March 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Romney isn’t buying the nomination, for one thing. He does, however, have the best organization of all the GOP primary candidates, and an aspect of that organization is its fundraising ability. Insofar as his VP pick is concerned, that is usually determined largely by region. It’s unlikely, for example, that Romney would pick Chris Christie, another Northeastern Republican, as his VP choice.

Should Romney win the GOP nomination, I’m guessing whoever it is would be Midwestern or Southern or Southwestern: Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, perhaps, or Marco Rubio from Florida, or Susana Martinez from New Mexico. If not for his recent inexcusable pardons, former Governor Haley Barbour from Mississippi would’ve been a good choice, but not now. If you think Ryan, for example, is a squish for supporting the TARP bailout, you haven’t been paying attention. He’s one of the few politicians out there with the guts to deal head-on with entitlement reform. Martinez is strong on social issues. Rubio, although baptized as a Mormon (as if it matters to anyone not a bigot), is a rising political star. I’d be happy with any of those three.

And lastly, if you’re turned off by Romney because Romney supporters–and I’m clearly a Romney supporter–have been mean, rude or brusque, causing you to want to give us another four years of ineptitude and socialism, then so be it. You Not Romney folks seem to be under the impression that our job as Romney supporters is to court you, to charm and gently persuade you, then you’re mistaken. As an American citizen, you’re expected to do what’s right inasmuch as it’s given to any of us to know the right. Contributing to the reelection of President Obama because your sensibilities have been offended would be, well, wrong. But hey, it’s still a somewhat free country. Follow your conscience and vote accordingly.

troyriser_gopftw on March 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Could someone explain to me how a former Pennsylvania Senator who toed the party line with support for the traitor Arlen Specter, voted time and time again for pork-barrel as usual, ran as a “moderate” in his losing reelection campaign, and has spent a couple of decades as a Washington insider, is the “anti-establishment candidate” while a successful private businessman who has spent little to know time in Republican circles, was a successful governor of Massachusetts where he balanced the state budget without raising taxes and helped craft a state healthcare plan, in concert with the Tenth Amendment, that was drafted in part by the Heritage Foundation, is the “Establishment RINO?”

I’ve asked numerous times but no one seems to have the answer.

Thanks.

Illbay on March 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

If you don’t know the answers to those questions, then perhaps you should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyjnzJtQPD8

Romney in his own words explaining how he will get rid of Obamacare. As I posted above, the discussion on Obamacare begins at the 1:11 point.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Yes, yes, yes. I’ve heard this several times.

The fact is that he cannot simply direct the secretary of HHS to grant waivers. The law does not allow for that. In fact, unlike most other provisions that grant extraordinary authority to the Secretary, the section on waivers is quite proscriptive. States must meet certain criteria to qualify for a waiver, which will not be easy for states to meet, and even if they do it’s a very lengthy and difficult process. And this assumes that they will want to apply. Not all states will want a waiver, even if they could get one.

In short, he cannot do what he says he will do if he wants to operate within the law.

He also says nothing about what it means to “go about getting it repealed.” What would he actually do?

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Kinda like his pretzel-like twisting on abortion throughout the years?

There comes a point when someone is so disingenuous enough that they can never be believed, up until the point that he actually fulfills such a pledge. And even still, people will not accept it.

If you want to blame someone, blame Mitt for his past behavior and flip-flops, not all of us for being Doubting Thomas’s.

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM

THIS.

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 1:09 PM

If the union Democrats didn’t vote for the union loving santorum, he would have lost Michigan by almost 10 points

fwm299 on March 1, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I have to admit I don’t know how the HHS waiver process works, so I accept the premise that he can’t do it. I’ve heard him on other occasions talking about working with Congress to repeal it. So, yes, he recognizes that he’ll need enough members of Congress to go along.

The same, of course, must be said for the any of the other candidates as well.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I also meant to point out that the waiver provision doesn’t even kick in until 2017, although there is an effort to move that date up to 2014.

Even if the date were moved up, and even if there were a way to get around the law respecting the criteria states must meet in order to qualify for a waiver, he STILL wouldn’t be able to do anything until a year into his administration.

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Romney continues to roll out the endorsements that MANY HA posters cannot figure out why we believe he is the BEST candidate and our next POTUS. IT is because of his leadership team and organization.

Romney Outlines Pro-Jobs, Pro-Market, Pro-American Energy Agenda

Today at Wrigley Mechanical in Fargo, North Dakota, Mitt Romney announced the support of Harold Hamm, the founder and CEO of Continental Resources and a pioneer in the extraction of oil from the massive Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana. Hamm will serve as Chairman of Romney’s Energy Policy Advisory Group, working with the campaign to assemble a broader policy team and develop a comprehensive national energy policy that creates jobs, protects the environment, and guarantees a reliable, affordable supply of energy to the American economy and to American families.

“Energy is not just an industry, it is the lifeblood of our economy,” said Romney. “An affordable, reliable supply of energy is crucial to the bottom line of every business and every family.” Romney noted that the average family spends more than twice as much on energy as it pays in income taxes each year, and that the increase in gas prices under President Obama has had a comparable effect to doubling income taxes for the middle class.

“I am proud to support Mitt because I believe he is the only candidate with the private sector experience that we so desperately need in Washington,” said Hamm. “As a businessman myself, I am acutely aware of how the Obama Administration has hurt the efforts of entrepreneurs and innovators, and how outrageously he has attacked energy producers in particular. Mitt’s goal of cheap, plentiful energy for the American economy offers the American people a stark alternative to President Obama’s goal of driving prices higher.”

http://mittromney.com/news/press/2012/03/mitt-romney-announces-support-harold-hamm

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Mitt Romney is your next president, and that is coming from a die hard conservative. When I read the idiots claiming that Obama (I would never refer to him as President) would chew up Romney in a debate, I laugh my a– off. First, do you actually believe that a “ruthless” Bain Capital executive would let a pussy like Obama beat him in a debate? Do you honestly believe that Gingrich or Santorum could win the support of the Independents or the Blue Dog Democrats? Can’t you get it through your thick heads that Obama the Marxist is destroying this country, and we all have to band together to elect Romney.Suck your thumb, go into tantrums but don’t sit this one out.

Big Nicholas on March 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I suspected that, when faced with the evidence, your rationalization would change.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I have to admit I don’t know how the HHS waiver process works, so I accept the premise that he can’t do it. I’ve heard him on other occasions talking about working with Congress to repeal it. So, yes, he recognizes that he’ll need enough members of Congress to go along.

The same, of course, must be said for the any of the other candidates as well.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I completely agree that none of the GOP candidates have a good way to address this. Really the only option is through outright repeal. I just worry that he won’t expend any capital on it. But nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong. :-)

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Could someone explain to me how a former Pennsylvania Senator who toed the party line with support for the traitor Arlen Specter, voted time and time again for pork-barrel as usual, ran as a “moderate” in his losing reelection campaign, and has spent a couple of decades as a Washington insider, is the “anti-establishment candidate” while a successful private businessman who has spent little to know time in Republican circles, was a successful governor of Massachusetts where he balanced the state budget without raising taxes and helped craft a state healthcare plan, in concert with the Tenth Amendment, that was drafted in part by the Heritage Foundation, is the “Establishment RINO?”

I’ve asked numerous times but no one seems to have the answer.

Thanks.

Illbay on March 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Asking a rational question from a group guided by irrational beliefs about a candidate will not yield a rational answer.

Conservatives who don’t like Romney don’t know why they dont like him. That’s why they cant respond. The conservative media told them he was bad, so they go with that.

Anyone who fairly, and intelligently, looks at Mitt Romney is impressed. And that is why Obama, and his handlers, are scared to death of going up against Mitt Romney.

milcus on March 1, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Doughboy on March 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

+1

With Breitbart’s passing and this poll result:
THIS IS THE DAY THAT AMERICA DIED.
technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Didn’t you hear Breitbart’s CPAC speech? Allow me to quote from it for you:

Breitbart – 2/10/12
“You want a unity speech; I’ll give you a unity speech. I don’t care who the candidate is and I haven’t since the beginning of this. I haven’t. Ask not what a candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate. And that’s what the Tea Party is. We are there to confront them on behalf of our candidate. I will march behind whoever our candidate is because if we don’t we lose. There are two paths: One is America, and the other one is Occupy. One is America, the other one is Occupy. I don’t care…
…Anyone who’s willing to stand next to me and fight the Progressive Left, I will be in that bunker, and If you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.

CC: KickandSwimMom , et al….

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Illbay on March 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

milcus on March 1, 2012 at 1:16 PM

+1000

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM

…Anyone who’s willing to stand next to me and fight the Progressive Left, I will be in that bunker, and If you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”

CC: KickandSwimMom , et al….

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Buy Danish with a memorable quote by the late Andrew Breitbart just upped the ante

+10,000

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I’m hopeful that SCOTUS will make this a non-issue.

But, if that doesn’t happen, it’s going to take a concerted effort of the President and members of Congress. I believe Romney recognizes that as well, and knows how important it is to many of us.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I’m hopeful that SCOTUS will make this a non-issue.

But, if that doesn’t happen, it’s going to take a concerted effort of the President and members of Congress. I believe Romney recognizes that as well, and knows how important it is to many of us.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM

*extends hand for handshake*

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Tell me again (actually no one has told me the first time),

Why are we supporting candidates that PICK and CHOOSE which states to campaign in and ones to avoid?

Doesn’t this just scream I cannot compete nationally?

And yet we are supposed to get behind one of these candidates when they didn’t even qualify on certain States ballots?

Explain this to me while we have a candidate with Executive and Financial background EXPERIENCE at turning failed businesses, govt’s, and Olympics around?

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM

You got it.

Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Rombots:

Instead of claiming victory all you can do is trash Santorum.

Show some class. Your guy has won. Move on. it’s getting boring.

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Romney noted that the average family spends more than twice as much on energy as it pays in income taxes each year, and that the increase in gas prices under President Obama has had a comparable effect to doubling income taxes for the middle class.

Talk about an idiotically tone-deaf use of statistics. This is very much not true for the middle class. The “average” statistics are accounting for the leechers at the bottom who don’t pay income tax and the Romney-types paying 15% on capital gains income.

sauldalinsky on March 1, 2012 at 1:35 PM

C’mon, Bachmann wasn’t smeared by Romney. She was a lightweight to begin with and flamed out when she went after Perry on the Gardasil issue. Speaking of Perry, is it Mittens’ fault that he accused GOP voters of not having a heart or couldn’t remember the Department of Energy? And unless the Romney camp was behind the leak to Politico over Herman Cain’s extramarital exploits or caused him to forget about the “right of return” or Obama’s policy in Libya, I don’t see how he was responsible for the collapse of that candidacy.

Which brings us to Newt and Santorum. Now there’s no doubt Romney(along with Ron Paul) spent millions on negative ads attacking Gingrich in Iowa and then Florida. But here’s what you have to ask yourself. Did Romney or the SuperPACs lie? Think about what Newt got attacked for. His resignation from the House Speakership(which did happen), his support of the individual mandate(which was true up until a couple years ago), and his $1.6 million payout from Freddie(which he did receive). Blame Newt for his shoddy record, not the candidate who bothered to point it out.

Santorum? It wasn’t the negative ads that did him in. It was the excessive focus on social issues. I said over the last few weeks that I had no problem with him addressing those topics and I respected him for not shying away, but you have to find that right balance. And you certainly have to be careful to not go to far as he may have done with the JFK remark. It also helps to have your surrogates on a tight leash so you don’t end up with aspirin jokes or a campaign spokeswoman accidentally referring to Obama’s Islamic beliefs.

Doughboy on March 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

That’s all true. Blame must be apportioned to the RNC and RINO establishment for kneecapping potential conservative opposition to Mittens from the get-go.

ebrown2 on March 1, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Rombots:

Instead of claiming victory all you can do is trash Santorum.

Show some class. Your guy has won. Move on. it’s getting boring.

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM

That’s a logical impossibility try asking for a square circle instead.

ebrown2 on March 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Yeah, but Newt seems to be on the rise again: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Foxhound on March 1, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Three weeks ago, Newt was at 27% in Rasmussen and 22% in Fox. The latest Rasmussen has him at 16% (up 1% in 2 weeks with a MOE of 3%) and Gallup tracking at 15%.

Impressive rise. You and Tina can barely contain your excitement.

Adjoran on March 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM

“sometimes you just gotta take one (or eight) for the team” – Rick explaining childbearing to his wife

hanzblinx on March 1, 2012 at 12:22 PM

LOL!

cam2 on March 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Rombots:

Instead of claiming victory all you can do is trash Santorum.

Show some class. Your guy has won. Move on. it’s getting boring.

technopeasant on March 1, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Should the rombots match the class of the not romney’s then?

rubberneck on March 1, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Romney noted that the average family spends more than twice as much on energy as it pays in income taxes each year, and that the increase in gas prices under President Obama has had a comparable effect to doubling income taxes for the middle class.

Talk about an idiotically tone-deaf use of statistics. This is very much not true for the middle class. The “average” statistics are accounting for the leechers at the bottom who don’t pay income tax and the Romney-types paying 15% on capital gains income.

sauldalinsky on March 1, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Sure it is true! You take what you pay in energy (gasoline for vehicles, heating oil, electric bills, etc) and in most Americans cases they pay more for this than they do in income taxes. And remember Obama and Sec Chu are all happy you do and do not want to fix it.

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Yeah, as much taunting that we (Romney Supporters) receive right before EVERY Primary and Caucus I think we can relish in this for THE DAY and then it is back to the grindstone of winning a majority of states on Supe Tue.!!

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Can’t stand Romney – nor many of his supporters on this blog from the way they have conducted themselves the last few months.
KickandSwimMom on March 1, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The problem with this statement of yours is that it presumes to act in a vacuum.

It however, does not.

You don’t like how some Romney supporters have acted, fine. It would be nice, however, for us to operate from an understanding point that for every Romney supporter here who’s a jerk, there’s been AT LEAST an equivalent number of “not-Romney” supporters who can given it every bit as nasty as they’ve received, and often do, gleefully.

Vyce on March 1, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I am in Afghanistan so I cannot listen but how is Rush spinning this today? He, Levin, and others have been so negative about Romney and yet Rush still says I do not want to lose credibility by backing the WRONG horse…yet he continually slams Romney with offhand or misleading and misapplied comments that I read from his website daily. And I am a 24/7 member…he has been ticking me off lately and I partially blame him for people’s dour mood toward Romney cause he plays into it instead of being truly neutral.

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM

The non-conservative element of the GOP, which consists mostly of people hostile to the Tea Party, going full-bore on an un-vetted Mitt back in early 2011 as the “presumptive nominee” didn’t help.

Myron Falwell on March 1, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Unvetted??? You gotta be kidding me. The man’s been running for president since 2006. That’s not enough time to check him out? Is there anything you know about him now that you didn’t or couldn’t have known then?

cam2 on March 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Tell me again (actually no one has told me the first time),

Why are we supporting candidates that PICK and CHOOSE which states to campaign in and ones to avoid?

Doesn’t this just scream I cannot compete nationally?

And yet we are supposed to get behind one of these candidates when they didn’t even qualify on certain States ballots?

Explain this to me while we have a candidate with Executive and Financial background EXPERIENCE at turning failed businesses, govt’s, and Olympics around?

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Considering that in the general election you have months, and only need to cover about 15-20 states to win, and in a primary, you have much less time, and cant possibly cover all the states, the 2 are not comparable.

In a perfect world, each candidate would probably love to spend several days, at least in every state. But when so many states are coming up, and only 6 days to campaign, its hard to not pick and choose.

And if we are being honest, Rick Santorum doesn’t have the money and organization to compete everywhere. And for Romney, its smarter to shore up support in states he can win, than in places like Oklahoma and Georgia.

milcus on March 1, 2012 at 2:17 PM

…Anyone who’s willing to stand next to me and fight the Progressive Left, I will be in that bunker, and If you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”
CC: KickandSwimMom , et al….

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM

te>

Thisssss!!!!!!!!!
Well Said Mr. Breitbart, Rest in Peace.

Thanks for reminding us all, Buy Danish

Natebo on March 1, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Could someone explain to me how a former Pennsylvania Senator who toed the party line with support for the traitor Arlen Specter,……

Illbay on March 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

There really are no reasonable explanations. Living in PA and NJ, I can tell you unequivocally, that no GOP people I know will support Santorum. I can’t on the basis that Specter voted for TARP and Santorum supported him. I also re-call sending Specter a letter that his TARP decision was a mistake and that he had underestimated Pennsylvanians displeasure for his vote in the affirmative. Santorum STILL supported him. He lost in 2010.

I met Santorum in NJ when he was a PA Senator at a political dinner. He was supporting a guy named Doug Forrester for Governor of NJ at the time and had come to NJ to add his support. Forrester’s career evolved from public sector administrator to private sector entrepreneur. Doug Forrester learned a lot about healthcare delivery, much of which he didn’t like. As director of pensions under former New Jersey governor Tom Kean, Forrester was responsible for the state’s health benefits plan, which then covered about a million public employees and dependents.I campaigned for Forrester because he was a very competent manager, very conservative and understood well the issues of health care both from a business and personal perspective with his daughter Briana.

Forrester was the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2002, in a race won by Democrat Frank Lautenberg, and for New Jersey governor in 2005.He ran against none other than Jon “I Know Nothing” Corslime.

My point is this. The Santorum of then and the Santorum of now are two entirely different people. With Forrester, he had endorsed a truly decent, conservative candidate for Governor and the people of NJ missed a golden opportunity to make the Garden State a better place. Later, when Santorum endorsed Specter, a REAL RINO, I vowed to never again vote for Santorum because he is even less conservative than Romney.

I’m telling you right now that as a practicing Catholic, Santorum is really a liberal. He acted that way in DC with Specter, he acted that way in PA with his earmarks and his remarks now, at times, are just ludicrous.Me may be a great family man. But he can’t even get re-elected in PA as Senator. He’s not hated, he’s just not believable.

Presidential timber Santorum is not. There are many others on this private list of mine who fit right in with Santorum. Toomeys another. He will be one term PA Senator also.

DevilsPrinciple on March 1, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Romney noted that the average family spends more than twice as much on energy as it pays in income taxes each year, and that the increase in gas prices under President Obama has had a comparable effect to doubling income taxes for the middle class.

Talk about an idiotically tone-deaf use of statistics. This is very much not true for the middle class. The “average” statistics are accounting for the leechers at the bottom who don’t pay income tax and the Romney-types paying 15% on capital gains income.

sauldalinsky on March 1, 2012 at 1:35 PM

What Romney said is true AND limits discretionary spending on other things. What part of that equation do you NOT get ? We all have budgets to keep. What part of if I have X to spend on fuel and it increaes exponentially almost overnight it has to come out of Y and Z at some point don’t you get ? In addition, The government gains more taxes from increased fuel prices. Obama has a vested interest in seeing fuel prices increase.

What does Obama care ? He’s on the dole at the taxpayers expense. Why should we re-hire an incompetent manager again?

DevilsPrinciple on March 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM

RIP, Andrew Breitbart.

DevilsPrinciple on March 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM

…Anyone who’s willing to stand next to me and fight the Progressive Left, I will be in that bunker, and If you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”
CC: KickandSwimMom , et al….

Buy Danish on March 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM

.
Andrew was spot on – No different than GWB’s rallying quote the libs loved to hate…..

“If your not with us, your against us”

And while GWB’s statement was a reference to fighting Jihadi terrorism-
Breitbart would agree the Progressive Left are pretty damn close to being terrorists.

FlaMurph on March 1, 2012 at 3:17 PM

He’s claiming that a tie in delegate allocations in Michigan should give him some credit for a victory in the state, but so far voters seem to be shifting towards the popular-vote winner.

After he pandered to Democrats that will never vote for any Republican in the fall to cross over and vote for him in the primary.

As I’ve posted before, it’s one thing for a party or a media personality to encourage it’s own to engage in this kind of chaotic OP. But it’s completely different for a candidate in the opposing party to invite them to do so for his own benefit. Santorum’s failure to understand this kind of basic principle makes his whole conservative schtick a little suspect, especially when you consider his votes for the “team”.

EconomicNeocon on March 1, 2012 at 3:22 PM

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Howdy.

M240H on March 1, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Santorum’s biggest advantage was that he was a relative unknown with fewer negatives than either Gingrich or Romney. That gave him a surge of popularity, but in just the last week, he provided himself with several. The only way the not-Romneys can win now is for one of them to drop out and throw all his support to the other, and that’s only if one of them does it before Tuesday and Romney wins, say, 5 out of 10 states, and piles up his lead in delegates still further. I don’t see that happening. Paul seems to just want to have his public say, and if he actually wins anything, that’s a bonus.

Confutus on March 1, 2012 at 3:42 PM

I meant to say I don’t see either Gingrich or Santorum dropping out before Tuesday. Romney winning 4-6 of 10 I can see quite easily.

Confutus on March 1, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I think santorum has a shot in Massachusetts– Mitt’s home state. Michigan was just his native state. Rick should go full-sweater ahead there.

Rusty Allen on March 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Could someone explain to me how a former Pennsylvania Senator…

Illbay on March 1, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Santorum belatedly got his turn as flavor of the month from the Anyone-but-Romneys. Everyone but Pawlenty, Bachmann and Huntsman already had a turn.

If this goes on much longer, Paul might get his turn or Newt another one.

cool breeze on March 1, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I think santorum has a shot in Massachusetts– Mitt’s home state.

Rusty Allen on March 1, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Santorum has no chance in MA. Romney is +48 in the latest poll.

I live in MA and Rick’s so-con nuttiness, particularly on contraception, plays very badly here. Paul or Gingrich would be more likely to pull off an upset. That’s not going to happen either.

cool breeze on March 1, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Looks like Operation Hilarity turned out to be pretty hilarious after all – for Mitt Romney. Maybe a “true conservative” shouldn’t seek Democrat votes in a Republican primary. It bothers the base.

captn2fat on March 1, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Breitbart meant at CPAC “whoever the nominee will be”.

The rest is propaganda.

Schadenfreude on March 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Also, those who claim the US died “today”…sure, she did, quite a bit, due to the loss of AB, but in a larger scale, she’s been dying for some time.

Schadenfreude on March 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM

The national polls mean nothing. If they did, Newt would have won Florida and Rick would have won Michigan and Arizona. the National polls reflect the most recent contests.

And for you idiots talking about Santorum going after democrat votes,

Mitt Romney says stop talking to democrats-Mitt Romney should stop being a democrat:
http://www.ricksantorum.com/pressrelease/mitt-romney-says-stop-talking-democrats-mitt-romney-should-stop-being-democrat

fight like a girl on March 1, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Reply to BuyDanish: Aaaaamen, aaaaamen, a a a a a a a a a a men. Thank you for quoting Andrew. If someone can’t see the light as to whom can win it to defeat our common enemy because of whatever gets in the way, then shame on them. Most Tea Partiers, me included, will stand tall with Mitt (and hold his feet to the fire). I am very sure that he knows that, very sure.

AReadyRepub on March 1, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I am in Afghanistan so I cannot listen but how is Rush spinning this today? He, Levin, and others have been so negative about Romney and yet Rush still says I do not want to lose credibility by backing the WRONG horse…yet he continually slams Romney with offhand or misleading and misapplied comments that I read from his website daily. And I am a 24/7 member…he has been ticking me off lately and I partially blame him for people’s dour mood toward Romney cause he plays into it instead of being truly neutral.

g2825m on March 1, 2012 at 1:56 PM

First, I am assuming that you are military and I would like to thank you for your service; Rush mentioned Romneys new lead briefly, but in connection with another poll. He spent most of today on his stupid rampage about the law student who wants taxpayers to buy her birth control pills. He is off the chart with how he’s handling this issue! I agree that taxpayers shouldn’t have to support free contraception, but he’s being incredibly crude in his analysis. By association it’s making the GOP look pretty bad. (IMO)

I agree 100% with you regarding his position on who he favors in this race. I’m so tired of his very obvious bias. It’s opened my eyes a bit as to how egotistical he can be- I also think he’s off base in his assumption that anyone of the 4 candidates could beat Obama. He’s determined that the 2012 election will be a double down of the 2010 midterms, and that probably isn’t going to happen. I have to laugh at how quickly he “sighs” and jumps on every little thing Romney says, yet finds all kinds of spin for Santorum. I guess he thinks we all have short memories and won’t hold it against him when Romney IS the nominee!

BettyRuth on March 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Hmm…

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/crossing-the-mormonism-rubicon/

Do you think Mormonism will be a real problem?

ConservativeLaw on March 1, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Two weeks ago, Rick Santorum rode a three-state sweep to a 12-point lead in Rasmussen’s last national survey…

Mitt Romney, coming off his primary wins in Arizona and Michigan, has jumped to a 16-point lead over Rick Santorum…

So, after Santorum wins a few states he’s +12; after Romney wins a few states he’s +16?
You’d think the question was “Who do you think will win?” instead of “Who will you vote for?”

Are people really that fickle? They’ll vote for who they think will win instead of for who best agrees with their positions on the issues?

imasoulman on March 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Mitt awarded more Michigan delegates.
http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23888&external=1356832.proteus.fma

Rusty Allen on March 1, 2012 at 6:36 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I’m hoping most for Daniels or Ryan with Rubio next best. My dark horse who I would love to see picked would be Marsha Blackburn but that’s just a dream.

MJBrutus on March 1, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Should Romney win the GOP nomination, I’m guessing whoever it is would be Midwestern or Southern or Southwestern: Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, perhaps, or Marco Rubio from Florida, or Susana Martinez from New Mexico.

troyriser_gopftw on March 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Won’t matter. Romney loses all those states regardless, with VA, NC, OH and possibly WV, KY and GA thrown in. It’s going to be a disasssstah.

ddrintn on March 1, 2012 at 7:00 PM

So, after Santorum wins a few states he’s +12; after Romney wins a few states he’s +16?
You’d think the question was “Who do you think will win?” instead of “Who will you vote for?”

imasoulman on March 1, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Bingo. That’s the key to Romney’s successful pimping ever since 2009.

ddrintn on March 1, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Could someone explain to me how a former Pennsylvania Senator… is the “anti-establishment candidate” while a successful private businessman… is the “Establishment RINO?”

I’ve asked numerous times but no one seems to have the answer.

Thanks.

Assuming that’t not a rhetorical question:

Santorum’s economic proposals, foreign policy proposals, and stands on religious issue sound conservative. He is fairly new and little known on the national scene. Only a few of those more knowledgeable about him have picked up on the discrepancy between what he says now and what he did then.
Romney’s career in Massachussets, where he began as a Northeastern liberal-to-moderate Republican, rather than a western Goldwater-Reagan moderate-to-conservative type Republican is still held against him. His record and the discrepancies are better known. The fact he was running second to McCain when he dropped out, but has maintained and developed his contacts and support within the party while his chief rivals aren’t running makes him, almost by default, this year’s establishment candidate.
Come to think of it, Reagan did similarly when he ran against Ford in 1976, who lost to Carter, but won the nomination over Bush, and the general against Carter in 1980. I don’t recall hearing the “lost to the guy who lost” argument back then, but it would have been just as bogus as it is now.

Confutus on March 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM

So, after Santorum wins a few states he’s +12; after Romney wins a few states he’s +16?
You’d think the question was “Who do you think will win?” instead of “Who will you vote for?”

Are people really that fickle? They’ll vote for who they think will win instead of for who best agrees with their positions on the issues?

Yes, they are. Watch the swings in polls from one week to the next. There are reasons the founders gave us a Republic rather than a pure democracy. They had forgotten more Greek, Roman, Medieval, and English political history (where fickle populace is amply demonstrated) than most of us even suspect exists.
But when all three major candidates are more or less equally in agreement or disagreement with their own positions, “who has the best chance to win” gets a higher prominence as the deciding factor.

Confutus on March 1, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Romney in his own words explaining how he will get rid of Obamacare.
Syzygy on March 1, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I suppose we could file this next to Obama’s promise to bring us all together…, but why would ever believe a politician whose entire life has been one of manipulating the voters by telling them whatever they wish to hear and the saying the opposite when you speak to a different politically centered crowd?

This man created Obamacare and will say anything to get elected.
Any man who supports abortion won’t get my vote -I could care how he adds nuance to it later.

Don L on March 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Romney up where he should be. Obama is already beginning to take shape in my rear view mirror.

jan3 on March 1, 2012 at 8:21 PM

I feel very good about Mitt Romney. He will be an excellent president.

The thing about Mitt is, the more people hear from him unfiltered, the more they see what a decent, warm, competent, responsible, well-tempered, straight-laced kind of guy he is.

The Obama Campaign is going to try to make Romney out to be some greedy wall street guy who doesn’t care about or relate to “average” Americans. But it’s not going to work.

Romney has this extremely wholesome quality about him that is comforting and reassuring. He’s like the father or husband you could always depend on to be there for you or to find a way out of a problem. Romney will win the trust of general election voters, just watch, despite Obama’s best efforts to paint Romney as “extreme” and scary.

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Mitt Romney has now won FOUR real primaries (and three in-a-row), while the unelectable Rick Santorum has not been able to win a single primary that wasn’t merely beauty contest.

Romney is the guy. I’m looking forward to wrapping up this primary season, so we can stop attacking one another and focus solely on the one-term president Obama.

bluegill on March 2, 2012 at 8:51 AM

The fact is that he cannot simply direct the secretary of HHS to grant waivers. The law does not allow for that. In fact, unlike most other provisions that grant extraordinary authority to the Secretary, the section on waivers is quite proscriptive. States must meet certain criteria to qualify for a waiver, which will not be easy for states to meet, and even if they do it’s a very lengthy and difficult process. And this assumes that they will want to apply. Not all states will want a waiver, even if they could get one.
Just Sayin on March 1, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Um, doesn’t the President pick the secretary of HHS? Wouldn’t Romney make his selection based on whether that person would do this? If s/he didn’t, can’t that person be removed and replaced?

talkingpoints on March 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM

The RepublicRAT establishment AND RINO Romney’s $Millions have infected the majority of otherwise clearly thinking conservatives with MHIT-For-Brains, that dreaded LEMMING disease that ROBS folks of any semblence of common sense, and causes them to vote for LIBERALS!?! Nice goin’, STUPID Party!?!

Colatteral Damage on March 2, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Colatteral Damage on March 2, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Blast. I do believe those chaps at The Establishment have gone and corrupted the morals of our otherwise upstanding voters. This Mitt Romney chap really seems to have gained the upper hand. Oh damn their eyes.

MJBrutus on March 2, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2