Mississippi polling: Gingrich up 4 in ARG, Romney up 8 in Rasmussen

posted at 1:20 pm on March 9, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Newt Gingrich’s Southern strategy seems to be holding in Mississippi — but that depends on which pollster you read.  A new ARG poll puts Gingrich in front with four days to go before their primary, but only by four points over Mitt Romney (via Twitchy):

Newt Gingrich leads the Mississippi Republican presidential primary with 35%. Gingrich is followed by Mitt Romney with 31%, Rick Santorum with 20%, and Ron Paul with 7%.

Gingrich leads Romney 37% to 32% among self-identified Republicans, followed by Santorum with 21% and Paul with 3%. Among self-identified independents and Democrats, Paul leads with 33%, followed by Romney with 24%, Gingrich with 20%, and Santorum with 14%.

Gingrich leads Romney 37% to 30% among likely Republican primary voters saying they will definitely vote in the March 6 primary, followed by Santorum with 17% and Paul with 5%. Romney leads Santorum 40% to 20% among those saying they will probably vote, followed by Paul with 18% and Gingrich with 13%.

This poll has two surprises in it.  First, Gingrich’s lead isn’t statistically significant in this poll of 600 likely primary voters; it’s equal to the margin of error.  Second, his closest challenger is Mitt Romney, who also had surprising strength in Rasmussen’s poll of likely Alabama voters today.  Santorum’s distant third in this poll doesn’t help his case for conservative consolidation, either, and is surprisingly weak considering his traction among conservative voters and evangelicals.

Gingrich’s lead improves to seven points among those definitely planning to vote on Tuesday.  However, the next tier of likelihood (7-9 on the self-reported probability scale) shows a huge advantage for Romney, 40/20 over Santorum, with Gingrich actually coming in fourth at 13%.  That was only 10% of the likely-vote sample, but it puts an ironic twist on a common Gingrich criticism of Romney — that he can only win when voter turnout is low.  In this case, it appears that a high turnout favors Romney over the field by a wide margin.

However, Mississippi looks like a lock for Romney in Rasmussen’s poll, which has him up by eight over both Gingrich and Santorum:

Rasmussen Reports’ first Republican primary survey in Mississippi shows former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leading his closest competitors by eight points.

A new statewide telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary Voters in the Magnolia State shows Romney with 35% of the vote, while former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich each draw support from 27%. Texas Congressman Ron Paul runs last with six percent (6%). One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

However, when the race is narrowed down to just the top two national front-runners, it’s Romney 46%, Santorum 44%.

The internals are a little more clear for Romney than in the three-way Alabama tie.  Romney leads among both men and women, leads each age demo (by twelve over Gingrich among seniors, 41/29), and among both Republicans and independents outside the margin of error.  Electability is slightly more of a priority in Mississippi than in Alabama (57/35 over “Republican values”), and once again Romney wins the “strongest candidate” argument by 15 points, 42/27 over Gingrich with Santorum at 18%.

Of the two polls, I put more stock in Rasmussen, but we’ll see how it shakes out on Tuesday.  If Romney wins one or both Southern states, it’s going to be hard to argue that the race is still winnable for either Santorum or Gingrich.  Meanwhile, Gary Bauer has some advice for Gingrich while he’s at least in the hunt for two victories — get out:

Armed with a poll of 200,000 conservatives, Bauer, head of Campaign for Working Families, said, “Now is the time for conservatives to stand with Senator Santorum.” …

“A strong consensus is emerging at the conservative grass roots to unite behind Senator Santorum,” said Bauer. “There is great admiration for Newt Gingrich’s contributions to conservatism, as well as his debating abilities. But the overwhelming sentiment was that he could most help the conservative cause by standing with Santorum so that voters have a clear choice in the remaining primaries.”

Don’t expect Gingrich to take that advice any time soon, and at least not until Wednesday at the earliest.


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 ARG polls had Newt in a close second in Tennessee and just slightly behind Rick and Mitt in Ohio. So they are a little suspect, to say the least. They always seem to give Newt more support than he has.I wonder why?fight like a girl on March 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM

You know that Newt Gingrich got delegates from both Oklahoma and Tennessee right?

At the end of the day this about collecting as many delegates as each candidate possibly can.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

T

Yeah because who really cares about money are property- if I can have sex the way I want to//
melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Huh?

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Yeah I just knew a Romney supporter wouldn’t get it.

The same people griping about Santorum’s stance on federalism and states making laws; are the same people USING it as a defense to Romney care.

Because making someone pay for mandated healthcare and making people pay for other’s healthcare is the “epitome of liberty and freedom.”

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Your comment was not a defense of federalism. It was a nonsensical analogy…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I think Mitt wins Mississippi and Newt wins Alabama. Or Newt wins both. Either way, Santorum is Rick-rolled, finishes third, and gets a show on Fox featuring discussions about the overt sexualization of trench coats.

Rusty Allen on March 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM

He’s causing his opponents to lose by outspending and smearing them, not winning because of people voting FOR him as Santorum and Gingrich have. That’s the difference and why we’re still fighting him.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I’m gonna take an LOL on this one. The only reason Newt and Rick got any play at all was because people have been looking for “anybody but Romney”, and they both had their respective turns as the selected Not-Romney. The both utterly failed as candidates shortly thereafter when people actually realized who they had thrown their support behind. Romney has had a consistent level of support since the start of the race.

So if anything, people are voting FOR Romney and those that are voting for Santorum or Gingrich are not actually voting FOR either of those two but voting AGAINST Romney. Your analysis is entirely off base.

Swerve22 on March 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Also PPP tweeted that they’re in the field in North Carolina right now and on the first night of their survey that Mitt was in the lead and they were seeing about a ten point swing away from Santorum in the last week. If that’s true and Santorum was up by six in their last NC poll then these results might fit nicely in line with what they’re seeing elsewhere in the South (i.e.: big, rapid movement in Mitt’s direction).

I wonder if Kansas can give Santorum enough of a boost over the weekend.

alchemist19 on March 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Because making someone pay for mandated healthcare and making people pay for other’s healthcare is the “epitome of liberty and freedom.”
melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Oh, and I should also mention the federal government already mandates we pay for others healthcare by forcing doctors, hospitals and taxpayers to pick up the bill for so-called “free riders”.

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Your comment was not a defense of federalism. It was a nonsensical analogy…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Sorry if you can’t understand federalism. I am not going to spell it out for you other than to say that states have a lot more latitude in making laws. The same chicken little screaming that Santorum is going to have a camera in your bedroom find NOTHING wrong with Romneycare which is as intrusive as a state contraception ban. Frick, if my state banned contraception- I could atleast order it on the internet-I can’t do ANYTHING about the state taking my money and paying for someone else’s healthcare..

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Given suprising poll numbers from both MS and AL for Romney, if he were to win both it would be “game, set & match”.

Tater Salad on March 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I hope Newt doesn’t think that he is not going to be blamed for Romney getting the nomination. I went to a republican/Tea Party gathering and even people who use to support him are upset that he is staying in the race now.

fight like a girl on March 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I hope you don’t think that, if Newt decides that he can’t win the nomination himself, he will align himself with Santorum. Because he’s way too smart for that.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

That’s true Bitter, he advocated changing the tax code to influence social norms (It Takes A Family). When the left does that, it’s called “Social Engineering” and when the Right does the same thing, it’s still called “Social Engineering”.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I do agree that I hate the usage of the tax code to infleunce any behaviors. That’s why I support ending the income tax entirely and replacing it with the FairTax. I don’t pretend that Santorum was my first choice in this whole process, but I still think he makes a better case for President than Romney ever will. There is no “warrior” at all in Romney, just the continuance of the status quo.

Bitter Clinger on March 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

well before she pulled this Rage against the machine rabbit out of her hat

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Um, no. She’s been “raging against the machine” for the past four years. If you didn’t predict she’d say the same damn thing today as she’s said for years, then you are the craptastic analyst. It’s Romney’s fault he’s a bad candidate. No one else.

alwaysfiredup on March 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Thankfully the average Republican voter is a lot more realistic than the average HA poster. The average Republican voter isn’t necessarily married to the inane and goal post moving purity tests of Conservative Talk Radio.

AYNBLAND on March 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Typical selective memory syndrom so perfected by progressive liberals/commies in pre- and post 1917 Russia and now in full display here. Does Whigs ring a bell? How about another liberal masquerading as conservative running against Hussein in more recent times? Say, in 2008? Does your memory go back that far, I really hope so. Please also remind us what exactly have Bohner/McConnell and “Republican voters” have done for the country lately? Ever?

There is no difference between Romney and Hussein save for better quality suits on the former. Not the reason my family left USSR.

Last thing I will listen to is yet another RINO trying to “educate” me on core ethical and moral values. Your lot belongs on Daily Kos, same lameness and same stupid ideas/views.

Can you list just one, ONE, liberal Founding Father? Thought so. Why the likes of you are demanding that we listen to liberals (whose dream is to have Romney to run against) is beyond comprehension. Stupid is as stupid does, never mind facts that stare you right in the face. Historical as well as current.

Any liberal not happy with the country that was founded by CONSERVATIVES is more than welcome to leave the place for greater pastures. You know, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea… They already have everything you morons want. I’ll pay for your tix out of here to your dream destination. One way, of course and as long as you surrender your USA Passport.

riddick on March 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Your analysis is entirely off base.
Swerve22 on March 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Yep, and it conveniently excludes what Newt’s PAC did with its attacks on Bain Capital – attacks so horrendous he got called out by the likes of Rush and Mark Levin – as well as his robocalls to holocaust survivors in Florida. And then we have Santorum’s ‘outreach’ to the Michael Moore constituency in Michigan…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

what Newt’s PAC did with its attacks on Bain Capital – attacks so horrendous he got called out by the likes of Rush and Mark Levin

You and Romney have no ability to take criticism. Whine, whine whine. This is why you’re going to lose to Obama, who is going to make the same attacks and could care less what Rush and Levin think.

alwaysfiredup on March 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

I understand federalism!! You don’t know how to write a coherent sentence to express your alleged support of federalism.

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

I’m gonna take an LOL on this one. The only reason Newt and Rick got any play at all was because people have been looking for “anybody but Romney”, and they both had their respective turns as the selected Not-Romney. The both utterly failed as candidates shortly thereafter when people actually realized who they had thrown their support behind. Romney has had a consistent level of support since the start of the race.

So if anything, people are voting FOR Romney and those that are voting for Santorum or Gingrich are not actually voting FOR either of those two but voting AGAINST Romney. Your analysis is entirely off base.

Swerve22 on March 9, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Most people aren’t voting FOR Romney….they’re voting FOR “electability”.

Bitter Clinger on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Why would Newt be blamed? He has experience in politics, actual accomplishments, and real ideas. He also has more delegates and a great shot at sweeping the south. He has no reason to drop out unless Romney wins in the south, which despite recent polls is a pretty tall order.

Rusty Allen on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Federalism is part of the constitution, it does not mean that states can pass laws that are unconstitutional. That is the whole argument against Romneycare by the ABR’s. You keep getting tangled up in your own argument.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I hope you don’t think that, if Newt decides that he can’t win the nomination himself, he will align himself with Santorum. Because he’s way too smart for that.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

He’s also smart enough to remember the smear job Romney did to him in Iowa. Elephants never forget…

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

understand federalism!! You don’t know how to write a coherent sentence to express your alleged support of federalism.

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Deflect, insult, deflect-Typical!

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You know that Newt Gingrich got delegates from both Oklahoma and Tennessee right?

At the end of the day this about collecting as many delegates as each candidate possibly can.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

My point was that the ARG polling has been way off especially with Gingrich.

You do know that Newt cannot win at this point, that he can only help Romney? Coming in third and fourth everywhere is not going to matter in April when you have large winner take all states.

In Ohio, 63 % of republicans said they would be happy with Santorum as the nominee, 58 % said they would be happy with Romney and only 48% said they would be happy with Gingrich as the nominee.
Newt is not liked. Why can’t you people get that through your heads? all hwe is doing now is helping Romney.

fight like a girl on March 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM

He’s also smart enough to remember the smear job Romney did to him in Iowa. Elephants never forget…

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Politics ain’t beanbag. I say he goes with the strongest horse, if and when he drops out. But, we’ll have to wait and see……

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Most people aren’t voting FOR Romney….they’re voting FOR “electability”.

Bitter Clinger on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

And that argument is getting weaker and weaker as we discover more about Romney. No wonder they’re so anxious to wrap it up so quickly. We need to continue the process to vet these guys. Oh yeah, they’re also counting on Rick’s and Newt’s money to run out. Fat chance.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Federalism is part of the constitution, it does not mean that states can pass laws that are unconstitutional. That is the whole argument against Romneycare by the ABR’s. You keep getting tangled up in your own argument.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

States make “moral” laws all the time based on societal norms: gambling, prostitution, age of consent, and incest laws are examples of those. If the “right to privacy” was absolute; then states would be unable to criminalize those thing.

Griswold was the epitome of judicial activism, and even though it has been used to extend privacy rights- it was NEVER suppose to be made that. Griswold simply stated that marriage was OLDER than the Constitution, and a state after giving someone the option to marry in contract could not interced in that contract. Griswold didn’t even give everyone the right to contraception; only married couples. It was a later case Einstadt v. Baird that did that, and it wasn’t given on the Constitutional basis of privacy. It was given because the court had earlier given the right to married couples. It was progressive rulings and it had NOTHING to do with the Constitution.

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Can you list just one, ONE, liberal Founding Father?

riddick on March 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Hamilton.

The original advocate of a strong central government. He created the idea of a national debt. There was the Bank of the United States. Argued that the general welfare clause gave the federal government broad authority to play its little reindeer games.

alchemist19 on March 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I love how Romney is attacked for spending money on ads against his opponents, as if that is something new to politics. His campaign is the most focused, organized and well funded of the four contenders. Any of them would do the same thing if they had the ability to.

jazzmo on March 9, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Federalism is part of the constitution, it does not mean that states can pass laws that are unconstitutional. That is the whole argument against Romneycare by the ABR’s. You keep getting tangled up in your own argument.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

BTW, I never said Romneycare was unconstitutional. I don’t think it is. It is extremely intrusive, but not unconstitional. I actually support federalism NO MATTER WHO exercises it.

That being said, I don’t think that Romney can hit Obama on Obamacare especially when he has doubled down on how “Romneycare” was the right decision.

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I love how Romney is attacked for spending money on ads against his opponents, as if that is something new to politics. His campaign is the most focused, organized and well funded of the four contenders. Any of them would do the same thing if they had the ability to.

jazzmo on March 9, 2012 at 3:14 PM

But they haven’t and are still giving Romney a run for his money. Very telling I do believe. That is much more admirable in a candidate than throwing money around.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Newt is not liked. Why can’t you people get that through your heads? all hwe is doing now is helping Romney.

fight like a girl on March 9, 2012 at 3:07 PM

If Rick Santorum drops out Sooner than Later, look for him to endorse Mitt Romney, that’s just the kind of conservative principles Rick Santorum stands for.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Hamilton.

The original advocate of a strong central government. He created the idea of a national debt. There was the Bank of the United States. Argued that the general welfare clause gave the federal government broad authority to play its little reindeer games.

alchemist19 on March 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I knew there was a reason I was a Burr girl!

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:20 PM

At the end of the day this about collecting as many delegates as each candidate possibly can.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

So are you impressed with Romney’s number in that front then ?

galtani on March 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM

If Rick Santorum drops out Sooner than Later, look for him to endorse Mitt Romney, that’s just the kind of conservative principles Rick Santorum stands for.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM

That’s kind of bizarre since another Hot Air posting has him considering Newt as VP – or maybe vice versa?

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

This looks very much like the low-information/low-interest voters just want anyone but Obama, and are ready to settle for the supposed front-runner. I doubt it will translate to a win for Romney.

Gingrich? I wish he had a chance, but he doesn’t. It’s a hard enough slog for Santorum.

Ham Sandwich 2012!!! We could do worse!!

tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:23 PM

alchemist19 on March 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Why is it that Hamilton’s legacy stain on this country is such a big secret? The Hamilton model is what the progressives argue to pass all their left agenda. I don’t know how many times Bill Clinton has channeled The General Welfare Clause and the More Perfect Union to claim they are improving on the founders intent….well one founder’s intent anyway.

Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution–and What It Means for Americans Today

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:23 PM

That’s kind of bizarre since another Hot Air posting has him considering Newt as VP – or maybe vice versa?

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

That’s called “Campaign Politics”

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Deflect, insult, deflect-Typical!
melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I’m not deflecting anything! You made a nonsensical comment. I responded with “Huh?” and you proceeded to become more, not less, incoherent. Which I’ll hazard a guess is “typical” of your commentary. Sorry if you find that “insulting”. After all, you’ve been so sweet to me, presuming I don’t understand federalism and then trying (and failing, but I digress) to explain it to me as if I were too much of a dolt to get it…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

That’s called “Campaign Politics”

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:23 PM

yup, conservatives don’t masquerade as moderates. It’s usually the other way around.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I’m not deflecting anything! You made a nonsensical comment. I responded with “Huh?” and you proceeded to become more, not less, incoherent. Which I’ll hazard a guess is “typical” of your commentary. Sorry if you find that “insulting”. After all, you’ve been so sweet to me, presuming I don’t understand federalism and then trying (and failing, but I digress) to explain it to me as if I were too much of a dolt to get it…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

No I made a comment to ANOTHER poster who had a whole line of commentary on it before mine. You came in the tail end; it isn’t my fault if you don’t understand…

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:27 PM

But they haven’t and are still giving Romney a run for his money. Very telling I do believe. That is much more admirable in a candidate than throwing money around.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yes and no. The way the rules were changed for this primary season in regards to proportional delegates plays a big part in that. It would likely be over by now if things remained as they were in 2008.

jazzmo on March 9, 2012 at 3:27 PM

At the end of the day this about collecting as many delegates as each candidate possibly can.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM

So are you impressed with Romney’s number in that front then ?

galtani on March 9, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Mitt has spent a lot of money to get to this point in the primary. If he really wants to challenge Obama in the General, he needs to roll out a “Spiritual” speech not to be confused with a religious speech, but something that will touch the American electorate. Mitt Romney needs to inspire people, and give people a reason for voting for him.

I don’t think Gingrich is right though about making a ticket out of the 4 of them. If it gets to the point that there is no way for Mitt Romney to reach 1144, there will be someone from the outside a 5th player to work out the republican ticket. The republicans need a swing state in the General. They need a candidate VP on the ticket, that can carry their home state. It wouldn’t hurt if that VP selection got the republican base excited about voting too.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM

It would likely be over by now if things remained as they were in 2008.

jazzmo on March 9, 2012 at 3:27 PM

God, that makes my blood go cold since we’re now fighting following that very similar path of self-destruction today.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:31 PM

yup, conservatives don’t masquerade as moderates. It’s usually the other way around.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Santorum is far from a saint when it comes to politics.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Hang in there Newt!

Night Owl on March 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Santorum is far from a saint when it comes to politics.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Friend, that’s why compared to the other 3, he’s my pick. A breath of fresh air and an inspiration compared to the rest.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM

No I made a comment to ANOTHER poster who had a whole line of commentary on it before mine. You came in the tail end; it isn’t my fault if you don’t understand…
melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I know that. I read the entire thread. That didn’t/doesn’t make your comment/analogy any less nonsensical…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

know that. I read the entire thread. That didn’t/doesn’t make your comment/analogy any less nonsensical…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Great! Then don’t comment on it UMMKAY? Go back to worshipping Romney…

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I do agree that I hate the usage of the tax code to infleunce any behaviors. That’s why I support ending the income tax entirely and replacing it with the FairTax. I don’t pretend that Santorum was my first choice in this whole process, but I still think he makes a better case for President than Romney ever will. There is no “warrior” at all in Romney, just the continuance of the status quo.

Bitter Clinger on March 9, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I know Bitter, that’s why I am in the brokered convention camp :) I don’t have a dog in this hunt.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Yes and no. The way the rules were changed for this primary season in regards to proportional delegates plays a big part in that. It would likely be over by now if things remained as they were in 2008.

jazzmo on March 9, 2012 at 3:27 PM

This is true. In 2008 Super Tuesday was February 5th, not March 6th and it had 21 contests including New York, California and awarded over 1000 delegates. So there were more delegates up for grabs just on February 5th of 2008 then there have been available for all primaries and caucuses held so far and we’re over a month later in the calendar.

alchemist19 on March 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Friend, that’s why compared to the other 3, he’s my pick. A breath of fresh air and an inspiration compared to the rest.

mozalf on March 9, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I get where you are coming from.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM

know Bitter, that’s why I am in the brokered convention camp :) I don’t have a dog in this hunt.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM

LOL– I might even start praying if that has a chance of happening!

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Most people aren’t voting FOR Romney….they’re voting FOR “electability”.

Bitter Clinger on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

That still means they’re voting FOR him based off the issue that is most important to them. Most people voting for Rick and Newt are doing it only because they DON’T LIKE ROMNEY, as demonstrated by the endless flow of surges to various non-Romney candidates over the course of the campaign. For whatever reason, Romney is the only one who has managed to get and keep and enlarge a consistent level of support.

The sooner we consolidate and start to focus on Obama, the better.

Swerve22 on March 9, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Your comment was not a defense of federalism. It was a nonsensical analogy…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Sorry if you can’t understand federalism. I am not going to spell it out for you other than to say that states have a lot more latitude in making laws. The same chicken little screaming that Santorum is going to have a camera in your bedroom find NOTHING wrong with Romneycare which is as intrusive as a state contraception ban. Frick, if my state banned contraception- I could atleast order it on the internet-I can’t do ANYTHING about the state taking my money and paying for someone else’s healthcare..

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Local autonomy is the real key here. I seriously doubt there’s a state in the Union that would even consider banning contraceptives. But there might be a few communities that would. No problem, if so. People buy them in the next town and they’re good. Or they move.

It’s the same situation as alcohol. Towns and counties may ban the sale of it, but the people who want it buy it in the next town. Discourages use of it in places that ban it, but doesn’t really block it anywhere else.

But the Supreme Court stepped all over the rights of cities, counties, and states to make their own laws and regulations, and claimed any such law violates a Constitutional Right to Privacy.

What do you mean, the Constitution never spells out a Right to Privacy? As long as Supreme Court Justices can infer it, it must be so!

tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Federalism is part of the constitution, it does not mean that states can pass laws that are unconstitutional. That is the whole argument against Romneycare by the ABR’s. You keep getting tangled up in your own argument.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 3:04 PM

No, the argument against Romneycare is not that it was unconstitutional. As a state matter, the Constitution doesn’t address laws like Romneycare.

The case against Romneycare is that it clearly showed a big-government philosophy that cares nothing about personal freedom, and feels free to order people to buy comprehensive health insurance from a government-approved list of vendors.

Whether that is or is not Constitutional depends on the constitution of Massachusetts, not the U.S. Constitution.

tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM

tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Exactly! I am from Illinois, and live in Tennessee now. What works in one state wouldn’t in another. The wonderful thing about federalism is that people can move. When the federal government passes law; where you going to move?

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Hopefully, we won’t hear any more talk about how Romney will do poorly in the South because he’s a Mormon.

EricW on March 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Local autonomy is the real key here. I seriously doubt there’s a state in the Union that would even consider banning contraceptives.
tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

There was such a law in Connecticut. Hence Griswold v. Connecticut…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Local autonomy is the real key here. I seriously doubt there’s a state in the Union that would even consider banning contraceptives.
tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:43 PM

There was such a law in Connecticut. Hence Griswold v. Connecticut…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

True. It was passed in 1879 and almost never enforced. People probably forgot it was on the books. Still, technically, there was such a law passed over a hundred years ago. It was struck down in 1965.

So, is there still a real concern that states today might pass a law banning contraceptives?

tom on March 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

No, the argument against Romneycare is not that it was unconstitutional. As a state matter, the Constitution doesn’t address laws like Romneycare.

The case against Romneycare is that it clearly showed a big-government philosophy that cares nothing about personal freedom, and feels free to order people to buy comprehensive health insurance from a government-approved list of vendors.

Whether that is or is not Constitutional depends on the constitution of Massachusetts, not the U.S. Constitution.

tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Well, that is news to me, after reading and listening to the outraged condemnations by most anti-Romney’s of the “unconstitutional mandate” that forms the critical link between Romneycare and Obamacare. Other than that mandate, the way MassCare was structured and enacted differs drastically from O-care. Romney brought all sides to the table. All sides compromised to a degree, but in the end it was passed overwhelmingly and hailed by the conservative press as a model of responsible state healthcare legislation.

Obamacare used the mandate,which may be unconstitutional, and added, oh, 2500+ more pages of additional regulations and costs that do not exist in Romneycare. The whole bill was drafted in secret with zero input from Republicans. Unlike Romneycare, which still gets positive satisfaction ratings in MA, Obamacare was resisted and opposed by a majority of Americans from the very start.

I’m not judging Romney’s plan other than to say that it was what the state of MA wanted, and Romney not only did not shove it down the throats of MA residents, but it was popular both then and now. Cost- containing, not so much, but that’s not what we’re discussing right now.

But, if you’re going to argue that Romneycare is big-government intrusion on freedoms, and then turn around and simultaneously argue that banning contaception is not…….well, I don’t think you’re going to win over too many folks.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

…So, is there still a real concern that states today might pass a law banning contraceptives?
tom on March 9, 2012 at 4:06 PM

No, and Romney was the first to say to George Stephanopolous how ludicrous it was to ask this question. Unfortunately Santorum insists on getting into the weeds of these issues which is not a wise thing for a politician to do. If he wanted to do this outside of politics, it would be fine to make these arguments…

Buy Danish on March 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM

But, if you’re going to argue that Romneycare is big-government intrusion on freedoms, and then turn around and simultaneously argue that banning contaception is not…….well, I don’t think you’re going to win over too many folks.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Nobody(not even Santorum) is arguing that either isn’t intrusive. Heck, most of us wouldn’t vote for a contraception ban. We are arguing that the federal government does not get involved in state matters-plain and simple.

melle1228 on March 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM

But, if you’re going to argue that Romneycare is big-government intrusion on freedoms, and then turn around and simultaneously argue that banning contaception is not…….well, I don’t think you’re going to win over too many folks.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

“There you go again”.

Nobody is making an argument to ban contraceptives. Just making an argument that religious institutions should not be forced to pay for them when it violates their consciences.

Bitter Clinger on March 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Rassmussen is probably more on target. Newt staying in is going to hand the state to Mittens, just like he did in Michigan, Ohio and Alaska. I hope Newt doesn’t think that he is not going to be blamed for Romney getting the nomination. I went to a republican/Tea Party gathering and even people who use to support him are upset that he is staying in the race now.

fight like a girl on March 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Ras had Newt at only 18 in Tennesse but he got 24. Ras had Newt at 37 in Ga but he got 47. I imagine some of the difference was undecideds making a decision after the poll was taken but I still think Ras was scoring Newt too low. The Real Clear Average sometimes has polls that are too old but in this case, the Alabama and Mississippi polls are all recent so averaging them all may be the best indicater.

KW64 on March 9, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I mean Santorum voted for funding of Planned Parenthood.

Bitter Clinger on March 9, 2012 at 2:33 PM

And that’s why we should vote for him?

Gelsomina on March 9, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I meant to say the Alabama polls are recent so the Real Clear Ave. is probably a good indicator. Some of the Ms polls are too old at Real Clear but averaging the ARG and Ras polls that are recent is probably the best indicator for MS.

KW64 on March 9, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Hopefully, we won’t hear any more talk about how Romney will do poorly in the South because he’s a Mormon.

EricW on March 9, 2012 at 3:53 PM

It would be nice surprise to see Mitt take one and especially both. I wouldn’t have expected him to do well at all in the land that time forgot.

It would be terrific in that it would put any rationale for Newt and Santo to hang around. It was bad enough that Santo got beat in the rust belt and Newt got beat everywhere outside of SC and neighboring GA. Failing to win either of these has got to be strong enough reason for even them to call it a day.

MJBrutus on March 9, 2012 at 5:57 PM

KW64 on March 9, 2012 at 5:11 PM

RCP does use some form of weighted average, lowering the value of a poll as it becomes stale.

MJBrutus on March 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

RCP does use some form of weighted average, lowering the value of a poll as it becomes stale.

MJBrutus on March 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Did not know that.

Thanks

KW64 on March 9, 2012 at 6:21 PM

No, the argument against Romneycare is not that it was unconstitutional. As a state matter, the Constitution doesn’t address laws like Romneycare.

The case against Romneycare is that it clearly showed a big-government philosophy that cares nothing about personal freedom, and feels free to order people to buy comprehensive health insurance from a government-approved list of vendors.

Whether that is or is not Constitutional depends on the constitution of Massachusetts, not the U.S. Constitution.

tom on March 9, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Well, that is news to me, after reading and listening to the outraged condemnations by most anti-Romney’s of the “unconstitutional mandate” that forms the critical link between Romneycare and Obamacare. Other than that mandate, the way MassCare was structured and enacted differs drastically from O-care. Romney brought all sides to the table. All sides compromised to a degree, but in the end it was passed overwhelmingly and hailed by the conservative press as a model of responsible state healthcare legislation.

Obamacare used the mandate,which may be unconstitutional, and added, oh, 2500+ more pages of additional regulations and costs that do not exist in Romneycare. The whole bill was drafted in secret with zero input from Republicans. Unlike Romneycare, which still gets positive satisfaction ratings in MA, Obamacare was resisted and opposed by a majority of Americans from the very start.

I’m not judging Romney’s plan other than to say that it was what the state of MA wanted, and Romney not only did not shove it down the throats of MA residents, but it was popular both then and now. Cost- containing, not so much, but that’s not what we’re discussing right now.

But, if you’re going to argue that Romneycare is big-government intrusion on freedoms, and then turn around and simultaneously argue that banning contaception is not…….well, I don’t think you’re going to win over too many folks.

Priscilla on March 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

UnConstitutional at the federal level, as admitted by numerous Romney supporters, but defended by the same supporters as okay at the state level because it is not actually unconstitutional. (Which isn’t saying much, since the US Constitution doesn’t address what the states may or may not do.)

Romney himself made the same argument, claiming it was fine at the state level but wrong at the federal level.

I’m not sure how you missed all that. The fact remains, claiming it was not actually unconstitutional at the state level is hardly a recommendation for the person proposing it.

Since no states are up for banning contraception, I’d say your question mostly serves to distract people from the big issue of the day: Obamacare. Here is a real trampling of freedom, and the triumph of big government. And here we see that Romney is not a conservative, and is likely to do little to restore small government and get rid of deficit spending.

tom on March 9, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2