Suffolk poll in OH: Santorum up 17 among early voters

posted at 12:45 pm on March 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier today, I ran through a number of polls in the critical battleground state of Ohio, showing a mix of results but for the most part indicating a virtual dead heat in the key Rust Belt state.  Suffolk University released its poll later in the morning, and it also shows a virtual tie, with Rick Santorum leading Mitt Romney by four points overall.  It differs, however, in one key aspect — its findings on early voters:

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (37 percent) leads former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (33 percent) by a narrow margin, according to a Suffolk University poll of likely Republican Primary voters in Ohio. Newt Gingrich (16 percent) was a distant third, and Ron Paul struggled (8 percent) in single digits with 6 percent undecided. The race is too close to call, as the top two candidates are within the statistical margin of error.

“The magic number in Ohio tomorrow night is thirty-nine,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “The candidate who gets to thirty-nine percent will win the state in what could be a rather late night of election returns. It’s now down to which candidate gets his supporters out to the polls.”

Santorum led 44 percent to Romney’s 27 percent among those who already have cast ballots, but among those who have yet to vote, Santorum’s margin was only 3 points, 36 percent to 33 percent.

According to the survey, 13% of likely voters have already cast their vote.  A seventeen-point advantage could be decisive, especially if turnout drops off tomorrow and that percentage of early voting ends up being larger than 13%.  However, that advantage is much different than what Marist found over the weekend.  They have Romney up three in early voting, which is a 20-point difference.

I’m inclined to put more stock into Suffolk’s independent poll than Marist’s NBC-partnered survey, but Marist had a larger sample (820 likely voters to Suffolk’s 500).  Also, the early vote in the Suffolk poll lines up better with polling in February for Ohio, when Santorum had double-digit leads over Romney.  A seventeen-point advantage might be a little on the large side, but it makes more sense than Romney getting a lead in early voting when he trailed so badly in polling before the February 22nd debate.

BuzzFeed picks up on a statement by Santorum over the personal cost of the presidential bid:

“I walked away from all of the jobs that I had and all the money,” Santorum said at the Dayton Christian School. He and his wife Karen have been “spending down our savings,” he said.

“That’s not necessarily the best thing to do when you have three kids entering college in the next three years, but our country is worth it,” he said.

The admission adds to Santorum’s underdog appeal, but it also underscores a reality that will bear on him more intensely if he fails to win Ohio on Super Tuesday and his path to victory narrows to almost nothing.

We didn’t need to know that to understand the importance of winning a large haul in delegates in tomorrow’s Super Tuesday races.  If he can’t close the deal in Ohio, it will be difficult for Santorum to keep donors on his team.


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

Yep. At least Clem Kadiddlehopper was funny.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 16, 2013 at 5:31 AM

Now there’s a dusty old name…I haven’t seen that sketch for at least ten years. Still remember it was funny!

MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 7:35 AM

Hello stranger..Good to see you..:)

Dire Straits on March 15, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Cheers:)

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 11:20 PM

There is some amazing irony in your commentary – someone who sounds remarkably like a spoiled child calling me “juvenile” and “deliberately obtuse” for not being able to make sense of your delusional fantasies. I’ll have to leave it to others to make sense of your blatherings – which begin with the false premise- that the narcissistic Marxist grifter Obama and Romney are like ideological fraternal twins. It then wanders off into something I can’t comprehend. I gather it has something to do with being pissed off that Sarah Palin didn’t run as a third party Tea Party candidate, and thus being left with no choice but to stomp your foot, pick up your ball, and stay home? Or maybe you had Ron Paul in mind? Who the hell knows. I’m not going to waste any more time trying to make sense of your nonsensical ‘analysis’.

Buy Danish on March 16, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Romney did not rise to the occasion in the election, so why expect him to do so here?

Sherman1864 on March 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

He lost by 3%, not a blow out, but a loss is a loss. He is a good and accomplished man who would have been a far better president than Obama who had no real accomplishments before his political life began. Romney isn’t a conservative and maybe that is why he lost but he is a respectable and humble man.

Dollayo on March 17, 2013 at 2:05 AM

He should be sorry he lost because he passed on the opportunity to unseat the Liar of Benghazi (oh, yes, where is that report now? What has the admnistration discovered?).

In a sense, this lack of political judgment disqualified him. We should have known not to nominate a person unable to beat McCain.

virgo on March 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2