Rasmussen: Santorum leads, but Romney trails Obama in four core states

posted at 7:30 pm on March 17, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Conventional wisdom — particularly as articulated by Karl Rove and Ann Coulter — still says Mitt Romney is the most “electable” GOP presidential candidate. The MSM repeats that notion ad nauseum, too. After Rick Santorum won Mississippi and Alabama, for example, MSNBC.com ran an article with the headline, “Romney’s electability doesn’t help him break through.” The Washington Post’s Dan Balz wrote a piece headlined, “Rick Santorum hoping ideology will trump electability,” as though Rick Santorum lacks electability. Two examples among many.

But a Friday poll from Rasmussen Reports suggests Romney might be less electable and Santorum more so than Rove, Coulter and the MSM would have voters believe.

President Obama now trails former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum by four points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup in combined polling of key swing states Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia. The president continues to hold a modest lead in those states.

Santorum leads the president 48% to 44% in the so-called Core Four states. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate in this matchup, and two percent (2%) are undecided. This marks a shift from last week, when the president was slightly ahead of Santorum.  (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Obama remains ahead of Romney 46% to 42%, showing no change from last week. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate in this matchup, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Forbes’ Scott Harrington distills the argument against Romney’s electability and for Santorum’s competitive edge in a few brief bullet points:

  • Along with entitlement spending in general, the central long-term issue confronting the electorate will be the Affordable Care Act — President Obama’s signature legislation — unless it is substantially overturned by the Supreme Court this summer.
  • Because key features of the Affordable Care Act mimic the Massachusetts health care reform law championed by Governor Romney, his nomination would substantially neuter this central campaign issue.  He would be unable to effectively lever opposition to the health care law in media campaigns or in the Presidential debates.
  • The President clearly wants to campaign against Wall Street and the “1 percent.”  Governor Romney would be an easy mark.   Senator Santorum would not.  It might be difficult to win an election with a campaign based on bogus allegations that Senator Santorum wants to prevent women from practicing contraception.

Harrington also notes that Romney still suffers from a robotic presentation of himself, while Santorum — with his passionate, un-tele-prompted speeches — has connected with voters on a gut level.

The Buckley Rule makes sense if you’re Nate Silver and an expert on electability. For the rest of us, it might make sense to just vote for the guy we’d really like to be president.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

ebrown2: “That they’re Grade-Z joke/vanity candidates that Willard, Master of the Universe, can’t put away?”

No, Santorum is an excellent candidate. He just started short on money, but with heart and a natural flair for campaigning he’s catching up.

Assuming Romney beats him, that will be a worthy feat and a good preparation for the general election.

People are being way too negative. Santorum and Romney are good men. Either will beat Obama and be an improvement on him.

David Blue on March 17, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Sorry, but that’s just a totally out of touch with reality; even if you lumped them all into one, the combo-not would still be trailing Romney.

whatcat on March 17, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Erm.

Nom de Boom on March 18, 2012 at 12:02 AM

And if you believe that load of nonsense, have I got a bridge to sell you!

deadrody on March 18, 2012 at 12:02 AM

And no neither would be good enough to turn the country around, get it off the wrong track and get it on the right track.

But if that’s what you want you need much better Republican legislators, and lots of them.

David Blue on March 18, 2012 at 12:02 AM

track and get it on the right track.

But if that’s what you want you need much better Republican legislators, and lots of them.


David Blue
on March 18, 2012 at 12:02 AM

.
All I want is absolute, idealistic perfection.

You wouldn’t think that would be too much to ask . . . . . .

listens2glenn on March 18, 2012 at 12:14 AM

The Buckley Rule makes sense if you’re Nate Silver and an expert on electability. For the rest of us, it might make sense to just vote for the guy we’d really like to be president.

I can’t say that I’d really like Santorum to be president. If he wins the GOP nomination, sure, I’ll pull the lever for him, but I honestly don’t think Santorum has a chance in the general election unless he manages to magically transform his shrill, abrasive, holier-than-thou personality into something that doesn’t alienate the daylights out of the independent voters we’ll need to win the election. This is the guy, after all, who claimed he was actually physically nauseated by JFK’s church-and-state separation speech, clearly without understanding either its historical context or the substance of its content. This is also the guy who actively colluded with avowed socialist and UAW President Bob King and other leaders of the hard and far Left in Michigan to get out the vote for him–an unforgivable political sin for a straight-ticket Republican like me.

And btw, haven’t heard much from the Santorum supporters on Hot Air on that last point. What’s your take on Republican politicians conniving with communists like Bob King to get out the Democrat vote in a GOP primary to screw over a fellow Republican? Is that honorable to you? Do you think that’s an acceptable strategy? Color me curious since I currently support Mitt Romney, but know if Romney connived with Marxists, I’d never support the guy. I’m wondering where your line is.

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Men ejected from Santorum rally after kissing

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120317/news/703179813/

Igor R. on March 18, 2012 at 12:34 AM

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Santorum will annihilate Obama as is, he is entirely under-appreciated as an Obama opponent compared to Mitt.

Igor R. on March 18, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Is that honorable to you? Do you think that’s an acceptable strategy? Color me curious since I currently support Mitt Romney, but know if Romney connived with Marxists, I’d never support the guy. I’m wondering where your line is.

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Drama queen. They all lie, cheat and steal. The only way you’ll get a perfect candidate is if you run.

Vince on March 18, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I love the bias of this site. Lets ignore all the negatives of Santorum and act like he is just a guy people like, while ignoring the fact that romney would have this thing wrapped up if 2008 rules were in place and the reason why he isnt winning states like Mississippi is because he is Mormon. whining.

bball3212 on March 17, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Sometimes you can really improve a post with just a little bit of editing.

didymus on March 18, 2012 at 12:56 AM

I love the bias of this site. Lets ignore all the negatives of Santorum and act like he is just a guy people like, while ignoring the fact that romney would have this thing wrapped up if 2008 rules were in place and the reason why he isnt winning states like Mississippi is because he is Mormon.

bball3212 on March 17, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Ok, more seriously.

The rule change from 2008 is significant, but it’s a feature, not a bug. McCain’s horrible loss in 2008 should tell us that we were way too quick to hand someone the nomination based on momentum in a very few early states.

The other is both false and pathetically* bad spin. Romney isn’t running as a conservative, no matter how often you say it, and Mississippi is a conservative state, where he still managed to pull 30% support. I’d say that was about as high as he could reasonably expect, and was due almost entirely to perceived electability. Mormonism was not really a factor.

*The pathetic part is pulling the “religious bigot” card every time something doesn’t go well for Romney.

didymus on March 18, 2012 at 1:05 AM

However, even today Rasmussen shows Romney doing better against Obama nationally than Santorum as do almost all the polls. This means that Rasmussen daily polls are wrong, or more likely, the snapshot of the 4 states were wrong.

jake22 on March 17, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Do you really not get that the poll results in a limited set of swing states may not match a national poll across all the states together?

didymus on March 18, 2012 at 1:09 AM

*The pathetic part is pulling the “religious bigot” card every time something doesn’t go well for Romney.

Do you deny that there are a good number of evangelical voters that have said in polls that they would not vote for a mormon?

bball3212 on March 18, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Also, embarrassing fact of the day: in 1994, challenger Romney lost to incumbent Kennedy by a narrower margin than incumbent Santorum lost to challenger Casey in 2002.

HTL on March 17, 2012 at 8:32 PM

You really screwed up this “fact.” First, the narrower margin was 4 tenths of a percentage point. Santorum lost by 17.4%, Romney by 17%.

Second, Santorum won two Senate elections before that, while Romney never won a Senate election

Third, Romney lost in 1994, a great year for Republicans, when they took over the House. At least, most Republicans did well. But not Romney.

Fourth, Santorum did not lose to Casey in 2002, but in 2006. How significant is that? Extremely. 2006 was as bad a year for Republicans as 1994 was good. In 2006, they lost both the House and the Senate.

So in one of the best years for Republicans ever, Romney lost by 17 points. In one of the worst years for Republicans ever, Santorum lost by 17.4 points.

Getting your facts from attack ads doesn’t work so well.

didymus on March 18, 2012 at 1:31 AM

You really screwed up this “fact.” First, the narrower margin was 4 tenths of a percentage point. Santorum lost by 17.4%, Romney by 17%.

Second, Santorum won two Senate elections before that, while Romney never won a Senate election

Third, Romney lost in 1994, a great year for Republicans, when they took over the House. At least, most Republicans did well. But not Romney.

Fourth, Santorum did not lose to Casey in 2002, but in 2006. How significant is that? Extremely. 2006 was as bad a year for Republicans as 1994 was good. In 2006, they lost both the House and the Senate.

So in one of the best years for Republicans ever, Romney lost by 17 points. In one of the worst years for Republicans ever, Santorum lost by 17.4 points.

Getting your facts from attack ads doesn’t work so well.

Romney was running against Ted Kennedy. In Massachusetts. Enough said.

bball3212 on March 18, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Add to the fact it was the best a republic had done in Mass. in a long while.

bball3212 on March 18, 2012 at 1:41 AM

You really screwed up this “fact.” First, the narrower margin was 4 tenths of a percentage point. Santorum lost by 17.4%, Romney by 17%.

>Second, Santorum won two Senate elections before that, while Romney never won a Senate election

Third, Romney lost in 1994, a great year for Republicans, when they took over the House. At least, most Republicans did well. But not Romney.

Fourth, Santorum did not lose to Casey in 2002, but in 2006. How significant is that? Extremely. 2006 was as bad a year for Republicans as 1994 was good. In 2006, they lost both the House and the Senate.

So in one of the best years for Republicans ever, Romney lost by 17 points. In one of the worst years for Republicans ever, Santorum lost by 17.4 points.

Getting your facts from attack ads doesn’t work so well.

didymus on March 18, 2012 at 1:31 AM

First, my comment regarding margins of loss was completely correct. Second, you are correct that I typed the year of Santorum’s Senate loss incorrectly. That was nothing more than a typo.

However, the voices in your head that decided I must have pulled my information from “attack ads” somewhere were incorrect. I found the information all on my own. Inferring your “facts” from a mere typo is a bit of a reach.

And I notice that you, while correctly identifying the years, totally failed to acknowledge the significance of the powers of incumbency, which worked so heavily against Romney and for Santorum (two term incumbent by your own admission), regardless of the year. Really. Running against a 6-term Kennedy in Massachusetts…no problem? And having two terms already under Santorum’s belt…no advantage? Your deliberate oversight on this point, unfortunately, cannot be attributed to a mere typo.

Here’s a hint: when attempting to Fisk on the basis of a typo, do not yourself commit a much more Fiskable (and less explicable) error.

HTL on March 18, 2012 at 1:56 AM

This cycle is more drawn out, has fewer winner-take all states, and several states that would favor Romney have been moved back in the schedule. Those are the facts.

HTL on March 17, 2012 at 10:03 PM

You’re a day late and a dollar short, bub. I asked for a link, I received one, and I stood corrected. But I maintain that a drawn-out primary may not be as bad for the Republican party as the rombots seem to think; if there’s any doubt as to who the candidate will be, especially if it lasts up until the convention, the Dems are going to have to do oppo research on more than one candidate. And if a dark horse nominee comes from a brokered convention? They might not be able to do any real oppo research at all. Silver lining, and all.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2012 at 2:03 AM

*The pathetic part is pulling the “religious bigot” card every time something doesn’t go well for Romney.

Do you deny that there are a good number of evangelical voters that have said in polls that they would not vote for a mormon?

bball3212 on March 18, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Anecdotal evidence is not compelling. And Romney has been running about as well as you can expect for a moderate. His nuancing of his positions, his inability to be authentic, his past record of liberalism, his prior identification of himself as a “progressive Republican,” and especially his support of Romneycare at a time when everyone is focused on repealing Obamacare: all these are powerful negatives. Mormonism probably doesn’t even move the needle.

I believe you’ll find it’s Democrats who are more likely to find his Mormonism troubling.

As I said, he managed 30% in Mississippi. If people there were having a visceral reaction to his Mormonism, he would never have won that much of the vote.

didymus on March 18, 2012 at 2:24 AM

Romney was running against Ted Kennedy. In Massachusetts. Enough said.

bball3212 on March 18, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Santorum was running against Bob Casey. In Pennsylvania. Very similar situation.

didymus on March 18, 2012 at 2:27 AM

Right. Romney crushed Santorum in Florida, but Florida wants Santorum over Obama more than they want Romney over Obama. Whatevs.

Ronnie on March 18, 2012 at 2:32 AM

You’re a day late and a dollar short, bub. I asked for a link, I received one, and I stood corrected. But I maintain that a drawn-out primary may not be as bad for the Republican party as the rombots seem to think; if there’s any doubt as to who the candidate will be, especially if it lasts up until the convention, the Dems are going to have to do oppo research on more than one candidate. And if a dark horse nominee comes from a brokered convention? They might not be able to do any real oppo research at all. Silver lining, and all.

gryphon202 on March 18, 2012 at 2:03 AM

Please excuse me for starting to make a comment, doing some online research to validate the numbers supporting my point, and then stepping away to take care of some real world business before coming back to finish. Because, you know, I shouldn’t comment at all here if this isn’t MY LIFE. 24/7/365. Bub.

HTL on March 18, 2012 at 2:33 AM

However, the voices in your head that decided I must have pulled my information from “attack ads” somewhere were incorrect. I found the information all on my own. Inferring your “facts” from a mere typo is a bit of a reach.

And I notice that you, while correctly identifying the years, totally failed to acknowledge the significance of the powers of incumbency, which worked so heavily against Romney and for Santorum (two term incumbent by your own admission), regardless of the year. Really. Running against a 6-term Kennedy in Massachusetts…no problem? And having two terms already under Santorum’s belt…no advantage? Your deliberate oversight on this point, unfortunately, cannot be attributed to a mere typo.

Here’s a hint: when attempting to Fisk on the basis of a typo, do not yourself commit a much more Fiskable (and less explicable) error.

HTL on March 18, 2012 at 1:56 AM

An attack ad was just released in Illinois saying exactly what you said, that Santorum could not be taken seriously because he lost his election by such a wide margin. It’s quite a coincidence that your comment perfectly echoed the attack ad. That said, I’ll take your word for it that you made this comment based on your own research.

I also did not accuse you of deliberately changing the year. I only mentioned the year because 2002 was not a particularly bad year for Republicans, while 2006 was. Therefore, the error was highly significant, deliberate or not.

1994 and 2006 were anti-incumbent years, so the advantage of incumbency that you name was not nearly as decisive as it usually is.

The fact remains that Romney is damning Santorum as a political loser for losing a Senate race by two-tenths of a point less than Romney lost his. (17.1 percent versus 17.3 percent, according to this. It’s not the killer argument that many assume.

didymus on March 18, 2012 at 2:40 AM

I think Santorum would play better in some swing states than Romney, and Romney will play better in other swing states than Santorum would. The electablity argument doesn’t favor Romney across the board, and I think Santorum could get blue collar type of Democrats that Romney can’t.

Dr. Tesla on March 18, 2012 at 3:15 AM

I would argue nearly 75% of Romney supporters are only supporting hinm b/c they have bought in to the theory only Romney can beat Obama. It’s a fear thing.

Dr. Tesla on March 18, 2012 at 3:17 AM

I would argue nearly 75% of Romney supporters are only supporting hinm b/c they have bought in to the theory only Romney can beat Obama. It’s a fear thing.

Dr. Tesla on March 18, 2012 at 3:17 AM

87.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

HTL on March 18, 2012 at 3:19 AM

Politicis involves a lot of speculation, such as your precious theory only Romney can win. You can’t prove it but you think it’s the truth all the same. You do the same thing you try to ridicule me for.

Dr. Tesla on March 18, 2012 at 3:23 AM

If I was a Romney supporter, I’d should say I don’t think conservatism can beat Obama or win at the national level right now and thus we need to run a pretty liberal Republican candidate in Romney who seems nice enough and doesn’t make any sudden moves.

This stuff about how he’s super conservative and RomneyCare was conservative just isn’t believable to thinking people.

Sell Romney as he is.

Dr. Tesla on March 18, 2012 at 3:26 AM

What’s your take on Republican politicians conniving with communists like Bob King to get out the Democrat vote in a GOP primary to screw over a fellow Republican? Is that honorable to you? Do you think that’s an acceptable strategy? Color me curious since I currently support Mitt Romney, but know if Romney connived with Marxists, I’d never support the guy. I’m wondering where your line is.

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM

The robo call thing, really. Somethings people love to nitpick and forget the whole storyline.

Santorum’s campaign and King did not work together. Santorum’s campaign caught wind of what robocalls were going out and thought hey, what a neat idea, let’s do that ourselves. I know hard to imagine right.

As Romney complains, he turns around and does robocalls to dems in OH, are you complaining about how unfair that is to Santorum (never mind Mitt fan blinders on). This is always the play of Mitt, whine and complain about what your opponent has/is doing and then turn around and do it to them (kinda like the SuperPac complaint to BillO).

However, I am surprised that you are not troubled by the Romneys friendship with Saul Alensky. If his dad’s best bud was Alensky, one wonders about what influences that plays on Jr.

PuritanD71 on March 18, 2012 at 3:34 AM

Drama queen. They all lie, cheat and steal. The only way you’ll get a perfect candidate is if you run.

Vince on March 18, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Right back at you, sport. They don’t all lie, cheat and steal. People tell themselves that so that it makes their own pettiness and moral shortcomings seem somehow not so bad. This country has leaders of integrity; otherwise, it would all fall apart under the weight of its own corruption. I’ve been in countries, such as Mexico and Turkey. A good man or woman in high office doesn’t last in office long and sometimes doesn’t live long. We’re not yet Mexico or Turkey.

Again: Santorum is a lowlife slimeball for colluding with frigging socialist Bob King to bring out the Democrat vote–the Democrat vote–for a Republican primary in order to slow down or stop a Republican opponent. I know a good many of you are Republicans of convenience, but to me, that’s scumbaggery of the highest order.

So don’t tell me how honorable Santorum is. And what is it with politicians who wear their faith on their sleeves, anyway? If we’re going to get an amoral hypocrite as a candidate, I’d prefer he not invoke the Almighty while he does what he does.

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 4:10 AM

However, I am surprised that you are not troubled by the Romneys friendship with Saul Alensky. If his dad’s best bud was Alensky, one wonders about what influences that plays on Jr.

PuritanD71 on March 18, 2012 at 3:34 AM

I’m sorry: Romney’s friendship with Saul Alinsky? I assume you’re referring to Mitt Romney’s late father, once governor of Michigan since Alinsky died in 1972 and I doubt a college-age Romney was an Alinsky disciple. George Romney was a gregarious man, more or less the opposite of his son. A former wall plasterer and laborer, George Romney had the common touch–again, unlike Mitt, who comes off as rather patrician. As governor, George Romney prided himself on getting along with everybody. I tend to doubt George Romney and Saul Alinsky were bosom pals, but Alinsky was a powerful figure in the labor movement, so Romney would’ve had to deal with the guy. Just because two people have opposing views does not mean they need a referee when they sit down to talk.

Anyway, what in the world does George Romney’s ‘friendship’ have to do with Mitt Romney, anyway? I don’t recall reading anything about George Romney conniving with Alinsky to undermine another Republican. Oh, wait: that’s because he didn’t. I had Romney the elder somehow confused with that lowlife Santorum.

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 4:20 AM

There’s no nice way to say this. If you’re going to change your vote based on a poll 8 months out from an election, you’re an idiot.

Common sense is a better guide…and anyone who thinks Santorum’s extreme and out of the main stream opinions on social issues wouldn’t be a focus of the campaign and drag down the entire GOP ticket across the country is…well, an idiot.

DRayRaven on March 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM

George Romney was a gregarious man, more or less the opposite of his son. A former wall plasterer and laborer, George Romney had the common touch–again, unlike Mitt, who comes off as rather patrician. As governor, George Romney prided himself on getting along with everybody.

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 4:20 AM

And both were/are notorious flip-floppers. The resemblance on that score is eerie.

ddrintn on March 18, 2012 at 8:34 AM

This is the guy, after all, who claimed he was actually physically nauseated by JFK’s church-and-state separation speech, clearly without understanding either its historical context or the substance of its content.
troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Richard Land is pushing Team Mitt to agree to make him Attorney General. Sorry, Mr. Land but he is not a good enough lawyer for this job and has never been a prosecutor. Rudy Guiliani would be a far better choice. But Rick would make a good HHS head.

Buy Danish on March 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM

How Involved was Mitt Romney in the Founding of Staples?

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/112456#ixzz1pQHtjLrT

mountainaires on March 18, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Romney WILL NOT be elected. Most Conservatives are not going to vote for him. When a candidate basically says “screw you, I don’t need to do anything to get your vote, you rednecks, you will vote for me in November because I know you are too stupid to vote for anyone else.” This has been pretty much the Pub establishmnet sentiment for yrs. Willard is just the first to be arrogant enough to say it.

they lie on March 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM

SoContorum annihilates Obummer in the area of executive experience. And that was the big issue in 2008 for those that can’t remember back that far. Obama doesn’t stand a chance against Richard’s many accomplishments. /I

Incredulous

FlaMurph on March 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

And both were/are notorious flip-floppers. The resemblance on that score is eerie.

ddrintn on March 18, 2012 at 8:34 AM

I’ll take a flip-flopper over a duplicitous, unscrupulous weasel like Santorum any day. Again: your guy worked in tandem with the most extreme Left of the American Left in order to undermine a fellow Republican in a Republican primary. You can’t defend it. Being a whiny little hypocritical weasel is part of the Santorum package. You can stroke the weasel and call it a kitten, but it’s still a weasel.

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

while Santorum — with his passionate, un-tele-prompted speeches — has connected with voters on a gut level.

LOL

EddieC on March 18, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Romney WILL NOT be elected. Most Conservatives are not going to vote for him. When a candidate basically says “screw you, I don’t need to do anything to get your vote, you rednecks, you will vote for me in November because I know you are too stupid to vote for anyone else.” This has been pretty much the Pub establishmnet sentiment for yrs. Willard is just the first to be arrogant enough to say it.

they lie on March 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM

B.S. Obama was the first to say it in 2008 — and unlike Romney’s statement that the party would have time to unite behind him before the GE, which is all he actually said but which the irrational among us exaggerate & lie about to pretend he was being arrogant & demeaning — Obama was *actually* arrogant and demeaning when he said the 8 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary would vote for him in the GE because (quote): “They’ve got no place else to go.” That, bub, is arrogant.Don’t get it twisted.

Dark Star on March 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Again: your guy worked in tandem with the most extreme Left of the American Left in order to undermine a fellow Republican in a Republican primary.

Quit it. All parties said there was no collusion whatsoever. You have proof that money switched hands!!!

Your guy robocalled dems in Ohio where is equality in that.

Alinsky is exactly the same as the dem op. If you want to attach Santorum to a guy he has never shook hands with, fine, Alinsky was much closer to Mitt. Who said that the college kid’s mind was not poisoned by his dad’s ideology? It looks like it the way he is running his campaign.

Get off your high horse of a non-starting issue and argue why mitt is the greatest gift given to the USA. Oh that’s right, there is NOTHING that Mitt has done for this country from a conservative perspective.

NEXT!!

PuritanD71 on March 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Incredulous

FlaMurph on March 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM

And Mitt is such a great Conservative leader/////

PuritanD71 on March 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM

How did Santorum purchase the house he lives in now? The public record isn’t clear.

Adjoran on March 18, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Conservatives are through voting for a candidate who has a disdain for them. Romney is unelectable. A vote for Romney is a vote for an Obama second term. Deal with it!

The problem for Mr. Romney gets worse: Those who support him do so tepidly, but many are refusing to support him altogether. In the same poll, 8% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they would vote for President Obama if Mr. Romney were the nominee, and an additional 11% said they would simply stay home on Election Day.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/15/romney-faces-stubborn-enthusiasm-gap-poll-finds/?mod=google_news_blog

Jayrae on March 18, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Rasmussen’s most accurate polls are after the election.

kozmo on March 18, 2012 at 1:57 PM

The problem with Santorum is the more you hear from him, the less you like him. Notice he doesn’t beat Obama in another important swing state–PA.

writeblock on March 18, 2012 at 2:14 PM

can’t see any swing states that go for santorum. focusing on banning porn and contrception won’t play well with swing voters.

gemini on March 18, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Losing the base means losing the election. And Romney has a lot of experience running losing campaigns. It’s a RINO thing.

WhatNot on March 17, 2012 at 7:43 PM

This

b1jetmech on March 18, 2012 at 2:37 PM

It’s still not to late to support Newt. He definitely would carry more of the base and independent votes.

DDay on March 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I’m drinking California Pinot Grigio, as usual.

Emperor Norton on March 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM

good choice if it’s a Russian River Valley Pinot Gris, the only good area for Pinot Gris in California…As you know, CA is a growing region that favors greatly Chardonay (for whites) and Cabernet Sauvigon (for reds), bit of Pinot Noir too, maybe, but not so much Pinot Gris…best Pinot Gris you’ll get is in my native region of Alsace (full bodied with spicy notes + peachy/apricoty flavor) and in Northern Italy where it’s bright, light and zippy (not my cup of tea, but good as a table wine).

jimver on March 18, 2012 at 2:44 PM

I’ll take a flip-flopper over a duplicitous, unscrupulous weasel like Santorum any day. Again: your guy worked in tandem with the most extreme Left of the American Left in order to undermine a fellow Republican in a Republican primary. You can’t defend it. Being a whiny little hypocritical weasel is part of the Santorum package. You can stroke the weasel and call it a kitten, but it’s still a weasel.

troyriser_gopftw on March 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

The Santorum supporters will never address this.

But a lot of conservatives in PA who voted for Bob Casey in 2006 will tell you that saying one thing and doing/voting for another is part of why they voted Santorum out of the Senate. Saying he lived in PA when he actually lived in VA was a big deal, because it was Santorum himself who made the residency of his first opponent, Doug Walgren, a major campaign issue. In the final analysis, a lot of Pennsylvanians saw him a a money grubbing hypocrite, who put on a very good act as a public servant.

Priscilla on March 18, 2012 at 3:04 PM

But a lot of conservatives in PA who voted for Bob Casey in 2006 will tell you that saying one thing and doing/voting for another is part of why they voted Santorum out of the Senate. Saying he lived in PA when he actually lived in VA was a big deal, because it was Santorum himself who made the residency of his first opponent, Doug Walgren, a major campaign issue. In the final analysis, a lot of Pennsylvanians saw him a a money grubbing hypocrite, who put on a very good act as a public servant.

Priscilla on March 18, 2012 at 3:04 PM

As a resident in eastern PA during the 2006 Senate race, this isn’t at all the primary problem that I observed leveled against Santorum. The two biggest issues were: (a) support of the loathed Specter in 2004 over Pat Toomey (many in the conservative base stayed home over this), and (b) his vocal support for Bush’s policy of military interventionism in the Middle East (and his call to take the fight to Iran, also) in a cycle when the electorate, especially in so delicately-balanced a swing state as PA, was suffering war-fatigue.

Harpazo on March 18, 2012 at 3:24 PM

That’s because Romney is a lousy candidate – little more than the pre-digested and regurgitated remains for Pineapple Bob Dole, Johnny McRino, and Jerry Ford.

All of the criticisms of Santorum are ones I’ve heard before – about Ronald Reagan, the last conservative POTUS potential that could “never win”.

Mr Galt on March 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM

What a shocker. Socons are still dupes.

YES. Of course Santorum is more electable.

There is no limit to the nonsense one can sell to socons. They are always buying.

They don’t stop and think. Think about why the media want to prolong this primary. Think about why the media want a convention fight. Think about why the Obamas want Santorum instead of Romney.

It all works for Obama, that’s why.

Moesart on March 18, 2012 at 3:49 PM

All of the criticisms of Santorum are ones I’ve heard before – about Ronald Reagan, the last conservative POTUS potential that could “never win”.

It was bad enough when some lost souls compared Palin to Reagan, and now this.

Wow.

Moesart on March 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Santorum is a far superior candidate than Mittens. I wish that Mittens would just go away.

Pragmatic on March 18, 2012 at 4:03 PM

It was bad enough when some lost souls compared Palin to Reagan, and now this.

Wow.

Moesart on March 18, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Because all you enlightened establishment guys “know” why this is a “wow” statement. No need to justify. So now Palin is somehow superior to Santorum? Seriously.

WOW

Mr Galt on March 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM

All I can say is that an INCUMBENT (which means he has all the advantages) was trounced in the 2006 Pa. senate race with the following results:

Bob Casey (D) 2,357,058 59%
Rick Santorum (R) 1.658,853 41%

Margin of defeat 18% and almost 700,000 votes in his HOME state.

No further comments.

MaiDee on March 18, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Romney chose not to run for reelection b/c it looked like he was going to lose, despite implementing RomneyCare and being a liberal across the board.

The talking point he uses against Santorum is kind of smarmy given this fact. :)

That’s politics though.

Dr. Tesla on March 18, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Santorum should be given credit for winning 4 out of 5 in a blue state while staying pretty conservative across the board with some heresies on spending and free trade.

Dr. Tesla on March 18, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I started to monitor PR’s results-been sick all day. So far Romney first, Santorum 2, Newt 3, Paul 4. The lead it seems is 2-1 Romney, but the numbers are pretty low for a turnout. I need to check how many ppl voted today, Geraldo I think he’s there already.

http://ceepur.org for information. I will check all the media I can check as I am in mom duty while trying to feel better.

ProudPalinFan on March 18, 2012 at 5:35 PM

This is all SUCH NONSENSE.

Rick Santorum lost in his home state in 2006 by the BIGGEST MARGIN IN HISTORY!

He wasn’t even electable as a SENATOR.

So, now you MORONS think he’s electable as President!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA…..

Honestly. If it were not so pathetic, I could muster some outrage. But you just deserve PITY, for being such stupid, incredibly stupid, morons.

mountainaires on March 18, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Pennsylvanians saw him a a money grubbing hypocrite, who put on a very good act as a public servant.

That is Rick Santorum in a nutshell.

mountainaires on March 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM

He lost by 18 percentage points; the biggest margin in HISTORY.

Rick Santorum is WHY HARRY REID IS MAJORITY LEADER IN THE SENATE TODAY!

SO PLEASE SEND SANCTIMONIOUS SANTO A LETTER OF THANKS FOR HARRY REID.

Rick Santorum often points to his House and Senate victories in a Democratic-leaning presidential battleground state to argue that he gives Republicans the strongest shot at defeating President Barack Obama in November.

He just as often breezes past his 2006 Senate re-election defeat in Pennsylvania, where he lost by a whopping 18 percentage points. The race helped hand Democrats control of the Senate. And it made Bob Casey, the namesake son of a former Pennsylvania governor, the first Democratic senator from the state elected to a full term since 1962.

“It was a meltdown year” for Republicans, Santorum argues these days when pressed about that shellacking. He also claims he was punished by his constituents for standing firm on the unpopular positions he had held, among them supporting President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. “I stood tall, stood for what I believed in.”

But the pitch glosses over the facts.

In the 2006 race, Santorum ended up not only alienating his own conservative base but independents and conservative-leaning Democrats, as well.

He was the No. 3 Republican in the Senate that year when Democrats made him a top target for defeat as they looked to wrest control of both houses of Congress from the GOP.

National Democratic Party leaders recruited the mild-mannered Casey to run for the Senate in hopes that his opposition to abortion and gun control would cut into Santorum’s conservative base. Casey had previously won three statewide elections – two terms as state auditor general and one term as state treasurer that was cut short when he was elected to the Senate.

Casey, like Santorum, opposed abortion rights – effectively neutering Santorum on his bread-and-butter cultural issue. And Casey’s family name added gold-plated anti-abortion credentials; his father pushed for and signed into law, as Pennsylvania governor, restrictions on abortion.
Santorum was vulnerable.

His reputation in Congress as a fiscal conservative and a scrappy partisan helped him, but his blunt talk about hot-button social issues – abortion rights and same-sex marriage, his high profile efforts to keep alive Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged Florida woman – tended to alienate Pennsylvania voters and made him a target for criticism inside and outside the Capitol.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/03/15/3823253/spin-meter-santorum-downplays.html

mountainaires on March 18, 2012 at 6:07 PM

All Romney does is lose…

He didn’t even run for reelection bc he was going to lose…

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Mormons believe the Catholic Church is founded by Satan…

Period end of story, if this gets out, Romney is done…

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Orson Pratt one of the fathers of the Mormon Church said this…

Orson Pratt – Roman Catholic church never had authority, it was founded by the Devil. Protestant reformers did not restore the church, their authority came from the Catholics who only had authority from the Devil. The Seer, p. 205 (1854)

This is a very extreme position, if this gets out we are done in the general…

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Well, Mitt won PR with 11%. Yep, lead is that far.

ProudPalinFan on March 18, 2012 at 7:01 PM

With sixteen percent reporting, Romney is ahead 83/8/3/1. It looks like they expect around 120-125,000 ballots to have been cast, or slightly more than in the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses combined.

Looks like “Santorum — with his passionate, un-tele-prompted speeches ” really worked some magic down there.

HTL on March 18, 2012 at 7:11 PM

In the 2006 race, Santorum ended up not only alienating his own conservative base but independents and conservative-leaning Democrats, as well.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/03/15/3823253/spin-meter-santorum-downplays.html

mountainaires on March 18, 2012 at 6:07 PM

This is exactly what I observed, living in Philadelphia at that time. Yes, it was a Democrat year, yes his support for the war hurt him…..but I know lots of people – Republicans – who had voted for Santorum in the past who were absolutely adamant that they would never vote for him again. His endorsement of Arlen Specter hurt him with conservatives, and the fact that he used PA taxpayer money to educate his children while living in Virginia really angered people in general. In one of his debates with Casey, he tried to claim that he was a PA resident because he paid taxes on a two bedroom house that his niece lived in.

I’ve mentioned before that I voted for him, partly because I almost never vote for Democrats, and parlty because I was not a long time PA resident with a sense of Santorum’s political past. But, there is no doubt that plenty of his previous supporters were not only disappointed with him, but disgusted as well.

Priscilla on March 18, 2012 at 7:13 PM

With sixteen percent reporting, Romney is ahead 83/8/3/1. It looks like they expect around 120-125,000 ballots to have been cast, or slightly more than in the Colorado and Minnesota caucuses combined.

Looks like “Santorum — with his passionate, un-tele-prompted speeches ” really worked some magic down there.

HTL on March 18, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I just want to know if Romney believes the Catholic Church is founded by the devil???

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM

At 7:35 p.m. ET, with about 20% of total ballots accounted for, the former Massachusetts governor had a substantial lead with more than 22,000 votes — or 83% of the vote.
Rick Santorum was a distant second, at 8% with slightly more than 2,000 votes.

83% of the vote to Romney; 8% to Santorum.

mountainaires on March 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM

No, but some of them think that Satan gave a hand in the development of several left of center parties.

IlikedAUH2O on March 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM

In Alabama and Mississippi, over 70% of the voters were white Evangelicals. Yet Santorum carried just 35% and 33% of the total vote in these two states respectively, versus Romney’s 29% and 30%. Evangelicals – and cynical crossover Democrats – have proven to be Santorum’s only reliable constituency.

mountainaires on March 18, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I just want to know if Romney believes the Catholic Church is founded by the devil???

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Gee, I don’t know…maybe you can get Ed and/or Tina to start a thread on that.

Here’s a revelation for you: almost every religion has bad things to say about every other religion. As far as I know, however, only one candidate in the Republican race has actually said anything stupid on the subject of religion…the marvelous, “passionate, un-tele-prompted” Santorum.

Which, now that I think about it, probably explains why you thought it was a good idea to go wallowing in the mud this way.

HTL on March 18, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I just want to know if Romney believes the Catholic Church is founded by the devil???

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I appreciate how important religion is to all of us.

I can’t find the passage you seem to use. Satan founding the CC? I don’t think the CC is in the book of Mormon. Now I have been to a total of three Mormon services so I’m no scholar.

I’ll bet I can find Roman Catholic Church execution orders finding Protestants the children of Satan. That was some time ago…

And at least Mitt wasn’t sitting there in the pew while our nation was treated like garbage.

You say Mitt is done with the oblique passage from the Book of Mormon?

Only with the media’s help!

IlikedAUH2O on March 18, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I appreciate how important religion is to all of us.

I can’t find the passage you seem to use. Satan founding the CC? I don’t think the CC is in the book of Mormon. Now I have been to a total of three Mormon services so I’m no scholar.

I’ll bet I can find Roman Catholic Church execution orders finding Protestants the children of Satan. That was some time ago…

And at least Mitt wasn’t sitting there in the pew while our nation was treated like garbage.

You say Mitt is done with the oblique passage from the Book of Mormon?

Only with the media’s help!

IlikedAUH2O on March 18, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Orson Pratt one of the fathers of the Mormon Church said this…

Orson Pratt – Roman Catholic church never had authority, it was founded by the Devil. Protestant reformers did not restore the church, their authority came from the Catholics who only had authority from the Devil. The Seer, p. 205 (1854)

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Gee, I don’t know…maybe you can get Ed and/or Tina to start a thread on that.

Here’s a revelation for you: almost every religion has bad things to say about every other religion. As far as I know, however, only one candidate in the Republican race has actually said anything stupid on the subject of religion…the marvelous, “passionate, un-tele-prompted” Santorum.

Which, now that I think about it, probably explains why you thought it was a good idea to go wallowing in the mud this way.

HTL on March 18, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I am Catholic, you will never find any of our leaders saying a peaceful religion is founded by the devil…

Look, I want the nominee to beat Obama, but I want them to be properly vetted and I would like to see this asked of Romney…

I don’t care about what Mormons believe or don’t believe in their own practices but when you start saying the Catholic religion is founded by Satan then I would say it becomes an issue…

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Mormons believe the Catholic Church is founded by Satan…

Period end of story, if this gets out, Romney is done…

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Not that you would want to get caught repeating gossip, of course, but in that case you should take more care to get it right the first time. The short version is, no they don’t.

Confutus on March 18, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Not that you would want to get caught repeating gossip, of course, but in that case you should take more care to get it right the first time. The short version is, no they don’t.

Confutus on March 18, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Orson Pratt one of the fathers of the Mormon Church said this…

Orson Pratt – Roman Catholic church never had authority, it was founded by the Devil. Protestant reformers did not restore the church, their authority came from the Catholics who only had authority from the Devil. The Seer, p. 205 (1854)

Since this was published in official LDS doctrine The Seer, can you explain to me how they don’t thin the Catholic Church is founded by Satan? Thanks…

MGardner on March 18, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Since this was published in official LDS doctrine The Seer, can you explain to me how they don’t thin the Catholic Church is founded by Satan? Thanks…

A (not necessarily the) longer answer is that LDS don’t accept everything written by an authority as doctrine. There are some wildly contractory views which musy be taken as opinion.

Mormons do generally hold that Christianity lost divine authority and power sometime between the 1st and 4th centuries.

Mormon scripture does decribe a church founded by the devil, characterized by an organized pursuit of money, power, sex, and praise; especially using violent, oppressive, and secretive means.

However, it is also most generally understood that this is not be to identifed with any one denomination, not even the late classical and medieval Catholic church. Various abuses make such an identification tempting, but on closer inspection there was too much good wrought by honest, believing priests, monks, nuns, and laymen to allow it. There are many groups which fit the description of the church of the devil much better than the Catholic Church does or ever did. Hence the short answer.

Confutus on March 18, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Conventional wisdom —

Those of us who have grown up in this country should realize by now there is no rhyme or reason as to whom gets elected to what.

Sometimes we get lucky as with Ronald Reagan…most of the rest of the time…bleah!

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 19, 2012 at 12:19 AM

I’m getting sick of the Santorum bias on Hot Air. Romney wins Puerto Rico by 80 plus percent, wins all 20 delegates, and not one post from the Hot Air team…I guess that isn’t news to Ed, Tina and Allapundit…even the Santorum Puerto Rico gaffes are never newsworthy. If Romney had said PR is a “Spanish Speaking Country” there would be multiple posts making fun of it…

teliason on March 19, 2012 at 12:42 AM

A (not necessarily the) longer answer is that LDS don’t accept everything written by an authority as doctrine. There are some wildly contractory views which musy be taken as opinion.

Mormons do generally hold that Christianity lost divine authority and power sometime between the 1st and 4th centuries.

Mormon scripture does decribe a church founded by the devil, characterized by an organized pursuit of money, power, sex, and praise; especially using violent, oppressive, and secretive means.

However, it is also most generally understood that this is not be to identifed with any one denomination, not even the late classical and medieval Catholic church. Various abuses make such an identification tempting, but on closer inspection there was too much good wrought by honest, believing priests, monks, nuns, and laymen to allow it. There are many groups which fit the description of the church of the devil much better than the Catholic Church does or ever did. Hence the short answer.

Thanks…

I also found this

Bruce R. McConkie – “It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Nephi 13:1-10)” Mormon Doctrine, p. 130 (1958)

It seems that multiple leaders of the Mormon Church have said the same thing, so if multiple leaders are saying the same thing, when does it come to the point that parishioners believe it as well???

MGardner on March 19, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I also found this

Bruce R. McConkie – Mormon Doctrine, p. 130 (1958)

MGardner on March 19, 2012 at 10:29 AM

McConkie withdrew this claim in the 1966 second edition, and his work is regarded as his own work and opinion. It is not made in the various manuals and study guides published by the Church. The LDS church has specifically mentioned working with Catholic Charities in connection with humanitarian relief efforts, especially in Africa, which it would not do if LDS leaders considered it to be Satanic.

Confutus on March 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM

“The issue in this race is not the economy.” – Rick Santorum, 3/19/12

“I don’t care what the unemployment rate is going to be. It doesn’t matter to me.” – Rick Santorum, 3/19/12

WINNING!!!!
(Just like Charlie Sheen).

LOL!!!!

Gunlock Bill on March 19, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3