PPP: Romney heading for an Illinois blowout

posted at 9:50 am on March 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Illinois gets its turn tomorrow on the GOP merry-go-round, in a rare meaningful primary for the state.  Only Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have seriously campaigned in the Land of Lincoln, but a new PPP poll shows that it may wind up being a one-man race:

Mitt Romney is headed for a blowout victory in Illinois on Tuesday. He leads with 45% to 30% for Rick Santorum, 12% for Newt Gingrich, and 10% for Ron Paul.

Romney’s particularly strong among voters who live in suburban areas (50-29) and with those who live in urban areas (46-23). But he’s even running slightly ahead of Santorum, 38-36, with folks who identify as living in rural parts and that strength with a group of voters he hasn’t tended to do that well with is why he’s looking at such a lopsided margin of victory.

Romney tends to win moderates in most states and Santorum usually win voters describing themselves as ‘very conservative.’ The swing group in the Republican electorate is those identifying as just ‘somewhat conservative.’ Romney is winning those folks by a whooping 60-20 margin in Illinois. Romney’s also benefiting from a 52-28 advantage with seniors.

More than a quarter of voters polled over the weekend say they could still change their minds (28%), so there is some possibility of a surprise.  Santorum has outperformed the polls in Alabama and Mississippi, and could be lurking for a surprise victory in Illinois, too.  However, if PPP’s numbers hold up, there isn’t much in the poll that would show late-deciding voters to break his way.  Favorability numbers are almost a wash, with Romney at 57/34 and Santorum at 55/36, for instance.  Slightly more voters identify as “somewhat conservative” (39%) than “very conservative (35%), and only 36% of voters are evangelical Christians.

Of course, this is also a pollster that self-identifies as a Democratic Party polling firm, and that’s evident from some of the stupid questions asked later in this survey.  Among them are such narrative-builders as Do you think that interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?, Do you believe in evolution, or not?, and Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?  I first noticed these questions from PPP in its Southern-state polling, but they apparently want to make a national case for ridiculing Republican voters.  Feel free to judge credibility on that basis.

Back on topic, Romney’s team rolled out an ad today showing their biggest endorsement yet … even though it’s from 2008:

Santorum has already explained this as his choice of the most conservative candidate in that cycle. I agree with him; I caucused for Romney in 2008 for the same reason, and I will caucus for Santorum on Saturday on that basis in this cycle. Still, it’s a clever point that Romney is making, and it will be an object lesson to politicians with ambitions for higher office about the risks of endorsements.


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

Sadly, I am getting used to the notion that Mittens is going to be the nominee.

trapeze on March 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

This PROVES Newt Gingrich is electable.

NickDeringer on March 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Whaddaya know? Another blue state that loves them some Romney.

“But…but…..but he’s so severely conservative”.
/Mittbots

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

You would think PPP would err in favor of the joke candidate.

EddieC on March 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I’m pretty excited about voting tomorrow! Got some heated local races, too.

lizzieillinois on March 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM

So what? it’s to be expected…Romney is a Democrat! But Obama will cream him in November i Illinois IF he’s the nominee.

America needs cojones. . . Perry/West 2012 Sarah Palin for Secretary of Energy

Pragmatic on March 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Of course, this is also a pollster that self-identifies as a Democratic Party polling firm, and that’s evident from some of the stupid questions asked later in this survey.

Which is why it’s odd that it’s not showing Santorum heading for a blowout victory. He’s the Left’s GOP candidate of choice.

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM

So what? it’s to be expected…Romney is a Democrat! But Obama will cream him in November in Illinois IF he’s the nominee.

America needs cojones. . . Perry/West 2012 Sarah Palin for Secretary of Energy

Pragmatic on March 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Wow, that’s quite a video. Why didn’t Romney roll it out six months earlier?

itsnotaboutme on March 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Do you think that interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?

Wow, didn’t know interracial marriage was such a hot topic in Illinois. Is someone suggesting it should be illegal?

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Romney’s campaign is certainly far more active than Santorum’s here in Illinois. We’ve been pretty much living under siege from the Romney phone bombardment. Not one call from Santorum (or anyone else) as best I recall. However, as I wrote in a thread last week:

1. I support neither Romney nor Santorum and I believe either of them would make a weak candidate at best in November.

2. Illinois GOP voters should have absolutely zero credibility and influence over our party’s nominee.

By the way, aside from the presidential primary, we have some interesting congressional races because of the recent loss of a seat and redistricting.

jwolf on March 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I’m not GETTING USED TO MITT AS THE NOMINEE….I’m getting used to four more years of OBAMA

PERRY/WEST 2012
AMERICA NEEDS COJONES NOW!

Pragmatic on March 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Not a big surprise. If money talks, Illinois has big ears…

Fallon on March 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Which is why it’s odd that it’s not showing Santorum heading for a blowout victory. He’s the Left’s GOP candidate of choice.

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM

or so you believe.

Lost in Jersey on March 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I’m pretty excited about voting tomorrow! Got some heated local races, too.

lizzieillinois on March 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Ditto. I plan on taking my 7 year old daughter with me to the polling place.

St Gaudens on March 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Whaddaya know? Another blue state that loves them some Romney.

“But…but…..but he’s so severely conservative”.
/Mittbots

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

That’s about it. No conservative in Illinois expects anything else, but for some reason we keep working to change it.

Lightswitch on March 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Anything worth saying is worth saying twice

MTF on March 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?

Neither. Obama is a narcissist. There is no room for God in Obama’s worship schedule.

Happy Nomad on March 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Sadly, I am getting used to the notion that Mittens is going to be the nominee.

trapeze on March 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Me too. I may have to take up drinking.

Laura in Maryland on March 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

All the new ad will do is ensure that people in the future will be hesitant in backing anyone.
This is the stuff that makes is so difficult in the future…for a few votes, they undermine future endorsements…Mitt knows very well that an endorsement is a “team” exercise, but than Mitt isn’t part of any team, he’s a liberal.

right2bright on March 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Not one call from Santorum as best I can recall.

jwolf on March 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Are you a registered Democrat?

EddieC on March 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I’ve heard of these blowout’s in the past…next thing you know..a race is happening.

(for 7%)…
…Hang in there Newt…!!!

KOOLAID2 on March 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM

I think Illinois should be penalized in the delegate count for giving us Obama in the first place.

Happy Nomad on March 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Do you think that interracial marriage should be legal or illegal?

What the Heck? Has anyone since the 1960s been talking about this? Just like contraceptives, this is a phony, nonissue that’s already been decided by the Supreme Court, but because the Fascist-Democrats can’t run on their record they make things up out of whole cloth.

rbj on March 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM

You have to love those narrative-framing questions from KOS’ pollster.

They need to ask Dems voters:

Do you believe Rooootherford B Hayes is a fat white racist who hated technology?

Do you power your car with a windmill, solar panels, or algae?

kevinkristy on March 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM

or so you believe.

Lost in Jersey on March 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM

A belief validated by, among other things, the Michigan primary.

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Is Romney tone-deaf? I don’t think his ad is clever at all. Santo was nice enough to “play ball” and endorse him 4 years ago, and Romney’s going to pretend it means something now?? It’s bizarre the tactics he uses. It makes him unlikable, and the more he keeps piling up on this “savant” behavior, the less likely I’ll be to defend him come Fall. Just leave it to the Mittbotts to do their thing.

Romney is a weird guy.

shannon76 on March 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

APPLYING ALINSKY RULE 4: MAKE THE ENEMY LIVE UP TO ITS OWN RULES. — A “tea party leech” is deemed a “tea party leader” in our local press after he is arrested for rape. This belies that fact that there have been 75 rapes in the Occupy camps, so examples of alternative headlines to suggest in the “Comments” sections of offending sites is offered. “Occupy” is a subsidiary of the “War in Women”: A Tea Party is one of the safest place for women in the world.

Mutnodjmet on March 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Whaddaya know? Another blue state that loves them some Romney.

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I can’t wait to put a candidate who does awful in states that went blue last election into the general election. That’ll really bring home the nomination.

Kriggly on March 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM

All the new ad will do is ensure that people in the future will be hesitant in backing anyone.

This is the stuff that makes is so difficult in the future…for a few votes, they undermine future endorsements…Mitt knows very well that an endorsement is a “team” exercise, but than Mitt isn’t part of any team, he’s a liberal.

right2bright on March 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Actually, a politician has no business endorsing anyone. It shows that the endorser is for sale and the price is being negotiated.

platypus on March 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I’m not sure I believe that margin, as pollsters have been underestimating Santorum’s “strength” throughout. If that is accurate, though, it could mean some coalescing is occurring.

And that ad is devastating.

changer1701 on March 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Sadly, I am getting used to the notion that Mittens is going to be the nominee.

trapeze on March 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I’ve been used to it since Michigan. It’s only a matter of time. Credit Santorum for giving it everything he’s got despite having no money, but Romney’s got too big of a lead at this point. Let’s just hope that Candidate Mittens does the following:

1) Pick a solid VP. Ryan and Jindal would be outstanding choices. Perry would be ballsy, but I think he and Romney hate each other too much. West and Rubio would be fine, although both would smack of identity politics.

2) Don’t make anymore unforced errors. Gaffes will happen. But the ones of the Cadillacs, NECKCAR owners, and I’m not concerned about the very poor variety are the kinds that can kill a campaign.

3) Don’t move too far to the center. If it looks like he couldn’t care less about conservative voters, the feeling will be mutual and that could spell disaster come November. The base will back Romney out of a hatred and fear of Obama, but negativity will only attract so many voters(just ask John Kerry if you don’t believe me).

Doughboy on March 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Santorum has already explained this as his choice of the most conservative candidate in that cycle. I agree with him; I caucused for Romney in 2008 for the same reason, and I will caucus for Santorum on Saturday on that basis in this cycle.

Small quibble, Ed. Fred Thompson was the most conservative candidate in the 2008 cycle…..even if he didn’t seriously campaign for it.

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I’m in IL and got a robocall from Santorum yesterday. He rambled on for way too long, and the sound quality was so poor that much of what he said was unintelligible.

JA on March 19, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Romney running strong in Blue states is exactly the point. ANY GOP nominee will carry Red states like Alabama, SC, OK, and many more. Making Obama DEFEND Blue territory is the point – we play on his turf, not the other way around.

Romney – unlike any of his competitors – puts into play all of New England, NJ, PA, OH, MI, WI, NV, and more. Romney won’t win all of those states, but we’ll make Obama go broke defending them.

matthew8787 on March 19, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Mutnodjmet on March 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Traditionally, Hot Gas commenters use “O/T” to signify an off-topic comment. You don’t want to give the trolls anything to eat, right?

platypus on March 19, 2012 at 10:11 AM

What the Heck? Has anyone since the 1960s been talking about this?

No, but it’s still fascinating to see that in 2012, only about half of Mississippians think it should be legal.

YYZ on March 19, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I understand why conservatives are reluctant on Romney. He will hedge to the middle when push comes to shove. But he has the best chance at beating Obama. And on social issues, the best thing he can do is nominate judges like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. He will also understand the real importance of removing the shackles on business activity. Because economic growth will be the most critical test of his Presidency, he will work to remove these shackles.

Romeny’s not perfect, but he is a million times better than Obama. And Santorum cannot beat Obama on his best day given his inability to stay on message with the Economy and Obama’s Debt Burden. Santorum will allow himself to get pulled into distracting issues like birth control and pornography.

RedSoxNation on March 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM

3) Don’t move too far to the center. If it looks like he couldn’t care less about conservative voters, the feeling will be mutual and that could spell disaster come November. The base will back Romney out of a hatred and fear of Obama, but negativity will only attract so many voters(just ask John Kerry if you don’t believe me).

Doughboy on March 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Unfortunately, it already appears he is taking conservative voters for granted.

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Whaddaya know? Another blue state that loves them some Romney.

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 9:55 AM

So far Romney has won all of the swing states, frequently in blowouts.

Jon0815 on March 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Which is why it’s odd that it’s not showing Santorum heading for a blowout victory. He’s the Left’s GOP candidate of choice.

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Have you ever thought that you might need to adjust your assumptions?

Fallon on March 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Is Romney tone-deaf? I don’t think his ad is clever at all. Santo was nice enough to “play ball” and endorse him 4 years ago, and Romney’s going to pretend it means something now?? It’s bizarre the tactics he uses. It makes him unlikable, and the more he keeps piling up on this “savant” behavior, the less likely I’ll be to defend him come Fall. Just leave it to the Mittbotts to do their thing.

Romney is a weird guy.

shannon76 on March 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Sorry, but that ad is incredibly effective. Yes, Santy was being a team player and all, but he still endorsed him as the best conservative out of that pack…pokes a lot of holes in the ‘but he’s just an Obama clone’ argument now.

And I don’t know what is weird or savant-like about it. Campaigns roll out ads like this all the time, because they’re effective.

changer1701 on March 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Romney running strong in Blue states is exactly the point. ANY GOP nominee will carry Red states like Alabama, SC, OK, and many more. Making Obama DEFEND Blue territory is the point – we play on his turf, not the other way around.

Romney – unlike any of his competitors – puts into play all of New England, NJ, PA, OH, MI, WI, NV, and more. Romney won’t win all of those states, but we’ll make Obama go broke defending them.

matthew8787 on March 19, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Other than maybe New Hampshire, New England will remain blue. Would like to know what you’re smoking.

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 10:15 AM

The hypocrisy from Ed Morrissey REEKS on this polling firm. When they were polling Santorum well, Ed couldn’t be bothered to notice that the MoE was so high it was absurd; nor could he be bothered to notice the sampling which stunk!

But a poll that is positive for Romney–Well, then the fangs come out and all these little trivialities are front and center and SIGNIFICANT.

It doesn’t matter what PPP says Ed. Romney will be the nominee and Thank God for it, because Rick Santorum is an IDIOT.

The Times’ Sarah Wheaton and Richard Oppelreport that Santorum has begun campaigning against cities.

“Think about it, look at the map of the United States — blue being the Democrats, red being the Republicans — it’s almost all red. Except around the big cities,” Santorum said in Illinois Saturday. “And yet when you look at the economic plan that Republicans put forward, it’s all about tax breaks for higher-income individuals who live in those blue areas mostly.”

Mitt Romney has won around the cities, Santorum said, like it was a bad thing. It’s worth noting, though, that the areas around cities are suburbs, which are a huge part of the Republican vote in a general election.

Santorum suffered an embarrassing defeat in Puerto Rico this weekend, where he spent two days campaigning because he thought being Catholic would appeal to the heavily Catholic electorate there. But Santorum has been losing Catholics all year, the Associated Press reports, because they tend to be more moderate. And he lost these Catholics thanks to a social issue — his demand that the island make English its official language before becoming a state. Clearly social issues are Santorum’s issues, and he’s sticking to them no matter what.

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-giving-moderates-suburbanites-people-creeped-penn-state-132544660.html

Republican Catholics Cool to Santorum

Across all states where Republican primary voters were asked their religion in exit polls, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, trounced Santorum among Catholics, with an average margin of victory above 20 percentage points. Even in Southern states, where Romney has struggled, Catholics broke his way.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANTORUM_CATHOLICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:15 AM

1) Pick a solid VP. Ryan and Jindal would be outstanding choices. Perry would be ballsy, but I think he and Romney hate each other too much. West and Rubio would be fine, although both would smack of identity politics.

2) Don’t make anymore unforced errors. Gaffes will happen. But the ones of the Cadillacs, NECKCAR owners, and I’m not concerned about the very poor variety are the kinds that can kill a campaign.

3) Don’t move too far to the center. If it looks like he couldn’t care less about conservative voters, the feeling will be mutual and that could spell disaster come November. The base will back Romney out of a hatred and fear of Obama, but negativity will only attract so many voters(just ask John Kerry if you don’t believe me).

Doughboy on March 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Ryan is a deficit spender. We must cut spending now no matter how difficult or painful. Jindal is much more effective right where he’s at, and being VP would deprive the GOP of a darn good hard worker. Perry has a serious chance to be the choice of a brokered convention. West is a Pigford sellout. Rubio can be challenged on the natural born citizen issue.

How about having Mittens pick the guy who beat him in ’08? You know, the maverick?

platypus on March 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Santorum has already explained this as his choice of the most conservative candidate in that cycle. I agree with him

Where was the outrageously outrageous outrage over Romney’s “immoral socialized medicine mandates!!!1!1!!!” then? True, ObamaCare didn’t yet exist but the argument from most people who oppose ObamaCare revolves around the mandates. So if the outrage is based on the opposition to mandates then Santorum should not have supported Romney in 2008.

Instead, linking the Massachusetts healthcare system with ObamaCare is simply a convenient way of bashing Romney. We know that in the past neither Newty nor Santy had a problem with mandates. But they and their supporters don’t mind pretending if they think it can help them win.

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 10:17 AM

1) Pick a solid VP. Ryan and Jindal would be outstanding choices. Perry would be ballsy, but I think he and Romney hate each other too much. West and Rubio would be fine, although both would smack of identity politics

Romney will put Rubio on the ticket. Which will force evangelicals to stay home. They will not be voting for a Mormon/former Mormon ticket. Thats just a slap in the face

liberal4life on March 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Mitt will get along just fine with the Bawling Boehner, McConnell, McCain, Grahamnasty and the country will gladly accept tinkering around the edges of Obamacare and not prosecuting the felons Holder and OBlahBLah!
At least this fall I can spend time hunting and with my family as I WILL NOT WORK FOR A RINO!

ConcealedKerry on March 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I was just sure that this was a bluegill post when I started reading it. Although this one went with “Santorum is an idiot” instead of “Santorum is a bigot”.

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM

PERRY/WEST 2012
AMERICA NEEDS COJONES NOW!

Pragmatic on March 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM

If America needs cajones, then the ticket needs to be Palin/West.

SWalker on March 19, 2012 at 10:20 AM

The hypocrisy from Ed Morrissey REEKS on this polling firm. When they were polling Santorum well, Ed couldn’t be bothered to notice that the MoE was so high it was absurd; nor could he be bothered to notice the sampling which stunk!

But a poll that is positive for Romney–Well, then the fangs come out and all these little trivialities are front and center and SIGNIFICANT.

It doesn’t matter what PPP says Ed. Romney will be the nominee and Thank God for it, because Rick Santorum is an IDIOT.

The Times’ Sarah Wheaton and Richard Oppelreport that Santorum has begun campaigning against cities.

“Think about it, look at the map of the United States — blue being the Democrats, red being the Republicans — it’s almost all red. Except around the big cities,” Santorum said in Illinois Saturday. “And yet when you look at the economic plan that Republicans put forward, it’s all about tax breaks for higher-income individuals who live in those blue areas mostly.”

Mitt Romney has won around the cities, Santorum said, like it was a bad thing. It’s worth noting, though, that the areas around cities are suburbs, which are a huge part of the Republican vote in a general election.

Santorum suffered an embarrassing defeat in Puerto Rico this weekend, where he spent two days campaigning because he thought being Catholic would appeal to the heavily Catholic electorate there. But Santorum has been losing Catholics all year, the Associated Press reports, because they tend to be more moderate. And he lost these Catholics thanks to a social issue — his demand that the island make English its official language before becoming a state. Clearly social issues are Santorum’s issues, and he’s sticking to them no matter what.

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-giving-moderates-suburbanites-people-creeped-penn-state-132544660.html

Republican Catholics Cool to Santorum

Across all states where Republican primary voters were asked their religion in exit polls, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, trounced Santorum among Catholics, with an average margin of victory above 20 percentage points. Even in Southern states, where Romney has struggled, Catholics broke his way.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SANTORUM_CATHOLICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Exactly right. And I’m another Catholic who supports Romney. We take seriously the need to defeat ObaMao in November. That’s what is best for Catholics in this country going forward.

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

How about having Mittens pick the guy who beat him in ’08? You know, the maverick?

platypus on March 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM

You’re missing a “sarc” tag…… I think (I hope?)

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Unfortunately, it already appears he is taking conservative voters for granted.

Judge Robert Bork is heading Romney’s judicial selection panel.

Romney will pick a solid conservative/Tea Party conservative to shore up his right flank.

The point is to position Romney well for the general so that he can secure the votes of independents and discerning Democrats.

Romney MUST govern as a conservative or he will face a fatal primary challenge in 2016.

Another huge point that skeptics are overlooking: Romney has no choice but to be bold on economic policy in 2013-2014, enacting the essentials of the Ryan budget, including entitlement reform. The reason? It is in Romney political SELF-INTEREST. The status quo anemic recovery will not take us where we need to get, nor will it avert a debt catastrophy. 2013 is the ball game for an economic course correction, or we are headed for the cliff. Romney and the GOP House/Senate truly have no choice but to be bold.

matthew8787 on March 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Santorum will allow himself to get pulled into distracting issues like birth control and pornography.

RedSoxNation on March 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Well, they do go together.

platypus on March 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Romney will put Rubio on the ticket. Which will force evangelicals to stay home. They will not be voting for a Mormon/former Mormon ticket. Thats just a slap in the face

libtard4life on March 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM

For the anti-Rommey paranoids out there, here’s yet another example of the Left working hard to secure the nomination for Santorum (or Newty, if he was viable). Why do you want to line up with libtards?

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Illinois Polling on Romney v. Santorum:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/il/illinois_republican_presidential_primary-1593.html

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Unfortunately, it already appears he is taking conservative voters for granted.

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

He’s had to reach out to them at least somewhat thanks to a more competitive primary than he had anticipated. He’s gone on record multiple times now pledging to repeal Obamacare, expand domestic drilling, pass a balanced budget amendment, and secure the border. If he tries to walk back those promises, there’ll be hell to pay from the base.

Doughboy on March 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:15 AM

I was just sure that this was a bluegill post when I started reading it. Although this one went with “Santorum is an idiot” instead of “Santorum is a bigot”.

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM

You have to take those spams with a grain of salt anyway. He put together a post asserting an identical letter was put out by DKOS for the Tenn primary for Santorum that was pretty much fabricated from the Michigan letter. Some half-truths all around. But in my book, a half truth is a half lie.

hawkdriver on March 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I’m not GETTING USED TO MITT AS THE NOMINEE….I’m getting used to four more years of OBAMA…..Pragmatic on March 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Translation: I won’t stand behind nor vote for the Republican nominee to unseat President Obama, because this is not my preferred choice. I’ll just stay home and eat my peas for four more years.

Rovin on March 19, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I’m another Catholic who supports Romney. We take seriously the need to defeat ObaMao in November. That’s what is best for Catholics in this country going forward.

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Oh, grand! Well, you are lonely in that small club, since the vast majority of Catholics vote for Romney. But who cares? You’ll vote for Romney in November, because otherwise, you’ll be helping Obamao.

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Santorum a man of principles… blah. Hes a politician who will say anything to get elected who has some huge personal issues that consistently cause a supreme case of foot in mouth disease.

aniptofar on March 19, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Romney will put Rubio on the ticket. Which will force evangelicals to stay home. They will not be voting for a Mormon/former Mormon ticket. Thats just a slap in the face

liberal4life on March 19, 2012 at 10:19 AM

libsquirrel4life’s fear of Mormonism: It’s what’s for dinner

Bitter Clinger on March 19, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Another deep blue state won by Romney. The funny thing is Rombots actually think Democrats in Chicago will vote for Romney over Obama.

Mittbots are funny.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Romney will pick a solid conservative/Tea Party conservative to shore up his right flank.

. . .

Romney has no choice but to be bold on economic policy in 2013-2014, enacting the essentials of the Ryan budget, including entitlement reform.

matthew8787 on March 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM

There is no tea party conservative who would be willing to be Mittens’ VP.

Ryan is a deficit spender. His “reform” was timely in 2006 except idiot Rove convinced Bush to “take the high road” when he was attacked by the perverted party. Result was total blowout and lunacy spending. Then there was the blowout of 2010 and Boehner gave it all away. Now it’s too late for Ryan’s deficit budget reform. Adopting it now would push the debt to 21 trillion or more before anything good got manifested.

Try to guess what QE 3, 4, and 5 would do to prices.

platypus on March 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM

He’s had to reach out to them at least somewhat thanks to a more competitive primary than he had anticipated. He’s gone on record multiple times now pledging to repeal Obamacare, expand domestic drilling, pass a balanced budget amendment, and secure the border. If he tries to walk back those promises, there’ll be hell to pay from the base.

Doughboy on March 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM

How do you figure? What hell? He has pretty much told the base to go jump off a tall bridge. So let’s say he wins and doesn’t try to repeal O-Care and raise taxes and doesn’t cut any spending like he’s promised and governs now differently than Obama.

And in 2016, the same people who now say you have to vote for an R no matter what, will be saying the same thing. You have to vote for him because the alternative is even worse. It’s the RINO way.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I’m in IL and got a robocall from Santorum yesterday. He rambled on for way too long, and the sound quality was so poor that much of what he said was unintelligible.

JA on March 19, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I have been getting at least one Santorum robocall per day since the middle of last week. (I live in Illinois).

Local polls suggest that Romney will win by about 5 to 7 points over Santorum. I’m not expecting a “blow out” win by Romney.

2. Illinois GOP voters should have absolutely zero credibility and influence over our party’s nominee.

jwolf on March 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM

And why would that be? The last time I looked at the Constitution, all of us have the same rights, including the right to vote.

Old Fritz on March 19, 2012 at 10:31 AM

2. Illinois GOP voters should have absolutely zero credibility and influence over our party’s nominee.

jwolf on March 19, 2012 at 9:58 AM

And why would that be? The last time I looked at the Constitution, all of us have the same rights, including the right to vote.

Old Fritz on March 19, 2012 at 10:31 AM

You can’t figure out why Obama’s home state, that he won by 30% should have no say in who goes up against Obama?

Mittbots are funny people. And often stupid too.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 10:33 AM

All the new ad will do is ensure that people in the future will be hesitant in backing anyone.
This is the stuff that makes is so difficult in the future…for a few votes, they undermine future endorsements…Mitt knows very well that an endorsement is a “team” exercise, but than Mitt isn’t part of any team, he’s a liberal.

right2bright on March 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Yep, Mitt’s only in it to stroke his own ego and daddy issues. He’s Obama without the overt dime-store college Marxism, but he loves the big government jackboot and hates the hoi polloi just as much as Barry does.

ebrown2 on March 19, 2012 at 10:33 AM

You can’t figure out why Obama’s home state, that he won by 30% should have no say in who goes up against Obama?

Mittbots are funny people. And often stupid too.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Even if angryed is actually this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Anger

he’s still right.

ebrown2 on March 19, 2012 at 10:34 AM

He put together a post asserting an identical letter was put out by DKOS for the Tenn primary for Santorum ..hawkdriver on March 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM

And, so it was. It wasn’t a “fabrication” in the least, and it came straight from Markos Moulitsas, asking Tennesee voters to claim the Republican ballot–because TN doesn’t register by party–and vote for Santorum.

You are a complete liar. And, I can prove it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1065052/-Announcing-Operation-Hilarity-Let-s-keep-the-GOP-clown-show-going-

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM

How do you figure? What hell? He has pretty much told the base to go jump off a tall bridge. So let’s say he wins and doesn’t try to repeal O-Care and raise taxes and doesn’t cut any spending like he’s promised and governs now differently than Obama.

And in 2016, the same people who now say you have to vote for an R no matter what, will be saying the same thing. You have to vote for him because the alternative is even worse. It’s the RINO way.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Yep, it’ll be, “Remember Obama? The Democrats are EVEN WORSE.”

Tuo quoque stuffed down America’s throat with a well-used toilet plunger…

No thank you.

ebrown2 on March 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Saying your the only “true conservative” just doesn’t make it so. I consider myself very conservative and I don’t think Santorum reflects my views regarding government activism in social issues, fiscal issues, or tax issues.

What’s left?

Tater Salad on March 19, 2012 at 10:38 AM

You all got to get a grip. It is no longer about the best candidate and Obama. The best candidates didn’t care about the welfare of our country and all, one by one, decided to put their own self interests above ours and not run.

So now we have Mitt and Rick. Rick Santorum is so out of step with normal social convention that it is scary. I am a conservative. But I am not a social conservative. I don’t want to hear about pornography and the harms of birth control and Satan. Those are not battles to be won in a general election where most Americans want jobs and affordable gas for their cars. And yes, he does talk about those things, and he actually makes a lot of sense. Then just when we are getting past the Fluke distraction, he’s talking about ridding the web of pornographer. A very noble goal, but now? He is playing to his very conservative base (sorry Ed, I usually agree with you) and this base is not going to win the election.
And maybe Romney can’t beat Obama. But until he has the opportunity to put all his attention there, and the money from his super packs aimed at Obama, we won’t have any chance. The goal is getting rid of Obama. And as much as I respect and agree with the concept of “Romney is no conservative” I believe even more that Santorum is not the right guy to win. Sometimes lofty ideals need to be tucked away!

marnes on March 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Another deep blue state won by Romney. The funny thing is Rombots actually think Democrats in Chicago will vote for Romney over Obama.

Mittbots are funny.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM

There is no better desciption of an act of futility than an Illinois Republican casting a vote. LOL

I’m still gonna vote tomorrow. We have some heated races for local offices.

Fallon on March 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Hey mental midget:He said that he SUPPORTS Mitt.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

There is no tea party conservative who would be willing to be Mittens’ VP.

Ryan is a deficit spender. His “reform” was timely in 2006 except idiot Rove convinced Bush to “take the high road” when he was attacked by the perverted party. Result was total blowout and lunacy spending. Then there was the blowout of 2010 and Boehner gave it all away. Now it’s too late for Ryan’s deficit budget reform. Adopting it now would push the debt to 21 trillion or more before anything good got manifested.

Try to guess what QE 3, 4, and 5 would do to prices.

platypus on March 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The phrase you are looking for is “Weimar Germany for $100,000,000, Alex.”

ebrown2 on March 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

You can’t figure out why Obama’s home state, that he won by 30% should have no say in who goes up against Obama?

Mittbots are funny people. And often stupid too.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Um, there are Republicans in Illinois, and they have just as much right to a say in the process as Alabama Republicans have had.

If you’re going to lash out and call other people stupid, you might wanna try saying something smart yourself. It’d be a nice change of pace for you.

changer1701 on March 19, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Being a former resident of the Chicagoland area, I think I can bring some perspective…

Whatever the results are tomorrow, don’t pay any attention to them. The people that are voting are the same so called Republicans that have let Democrats roll all over them virtually uncontested for years and years.

Milquetoast doesn’t even being to describe the so-called GOP leadership in Illinois. These fools aren’t even capable of kicking out the Democrat State House Speaker Mike Madigan, who’s been in that position for nearly THREE DECADES.

So glad we left that statist, union run hellhole.

Common Sense Floridian on March 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM

they apparently want to make a national case for ridiculing Republican voters.

Don’t blame the pollsters; they couldn’t make a national case for ridiculing Republican voters if Republican voters didn’t give ridiculous answers to those questions.

hicsuget on March 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Which is why it’s odd that it’s not showing Santorum heading for a blowout victory. He’s the Left’s GOP candidate of choice.

cicerone on March 19, 2012 at 9:57 AM

This aptly self-named character is a perfect written guide to the foolish, gutless compromising team rah-rah nonsense of Mittbots. All 4 of the remaining candidates are beautiful as far as the Left is concerned:

A) Ron Paul, for obvious reasons.

B) Gingrich is a perpetual bogeyman to the left, whose own pettiness and personal instability would guarantee an Obama victory in the fall.

C) Santorum wants to be head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, not the President of the United States.

D) and last and least…Mittwit is the Republican closest to Obama in ideology. Assuming his election, he will exert exactly zero political influence to get O-care repealed and do nothing to grow jobs (just like he did nothing to grow the economy in MA). The disaster that Oliar set in motion will come to full fruition under Mitt and Republicans will get the blame, not just the Mitt zombies that ran the country over the cliff with their support of a political dullard. In all likelihood, he will blow the race, just as he’s done in the past.

ebrown2 on March 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM

About 75% of GOP voters in the IL primary will be from Chicago or the Chicago suburbs. They won’t be voting for Santorum, at least not most of them. Doesn’t matter of course, since IL is a hopeless cause in November, but Santorum doesn’t have a chance.

eyedoc on March 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM

There are only two reasons Rick is still in this race; 1) meddlesome Democrats in Ohio and Michigan which kept those races close and, 2) evangelicals who are voting against Mormanisn (see angryed.

Tater Salad on March 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM

mountainaires on March 19, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Hey mental midget:He said that he SUPPORTS Mitt.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM

LOL! The Mitt Zombies have turned and are now gnawing each other.

What a perfect apocalypse of political stupidity!

ebrown2 on March 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM

America needs cojones. . . Perry/West 2012 Sarah Palin for Secretary of Energy

Pragmatic on March 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Politics isn’t fantasy baseball. Perry had his shot and he blew it.

troyriser_gopftw on March 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM

For the first time in my adult life………tomorrow I get to vote in a primary in Illinois that actually matters!

herm2416 on March 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM

America needs cojones. . . Perry/West 2012 Sarah Palin for Secretary of Energy

Pragmatic on March 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Politics isn’t fantasy baseball. Perry had his shot and he blew it.

troyriser_gopftw on March 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Yep, his “Good ole’ boy” routine may work in the Lone Star State, but Republican primary voters were wary of another Texas-braggadocio filled “compassionate conservative” who’s soft on immigration. (you know, the subject even -ROMNEY- is smart enough to realize is a primary third-rail to be avoided!) He was always walking on blue ice, and his debate performances and “heartless” comment made him look like W’s duller brother.

All hat and no cattle, as they say down Texas way.

ebrown2 on March 19, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Is Romney tone-deaf? I don’t think his ad is clever at all. Santo was nice enough to “play ball” and endorse him 4 years ago, and Romney’s going to pretend it means something now?? It’s bizarre the tactics he uses. It makes him unlikable, and the more he keeps piling up on this “savant” behavior, the less likely I’ll be to defend him come Fall. Just leave it to the Mittbotts to do their thing.

Romney is a weird guy.

shannon76 on March 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Sorry, but that ad is incredibly effective. Yes, Santy was being a team player and all, but he still endorsed him as the best conservative out of that pack…pokes a lot of holes in the ‘but he’s just an Obama clone’ argument now.

And I don’t know what is weird or savant-like about it. Campaigns roll out ads like this all the time, because they’re effective.

changer1701 on March 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM

You’re right, changer, but it’s apparent from shannon’s utterly nonsensical rant that she’s nowhere near being able to listen to reason in these matters.
There are good arguments against Mitt, but shannon doesn’t seem to know them or need them.

itsnotaboutme on March 19, 2012 at 11:01 AM

There are only two reasons Rick is still in this race; 1) meddlesome Democrats in Ohio and Michigan which kept those races close and, 2) evangelicals who are voting against Mormanisn (see angryed.

Tater Salad on March 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Santorum is the last Not Romney standing: that’s what keeps his candidacy alive. As to your second point, I find it hard to believe Santorum’s candidacy is being sustained to any meaningful extent by anti-Mormon bigotry. I live in Indiana, a state teeming with evangelical Christians, and I never hear any strong anti-Mormon sentiments expressed whenever politics are discussed, maybe because there is a strong Mormon community here, too. We tend to get along, so maybe my perceptions are too localized.

troyriser_gopftw on March 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Sadly, I am getting used to the notion that Mittens is going to be the nominee.

trapeze on March 19, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Sadly, I am getting used to the notion to Obama is going to get a second term.

joekenha on March 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM

YYZ on March 19, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Nice punt. Ever seen the reaction in the black community when a black male marries a white female. It isn’t pretty. I got to see it up close and personal when a black co-coach for a high school track program in liberal California married a white woman. The comments made by the local blacks made the slut comment made by Rush look tame.

chemman on March 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Tater Salad on March 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM

When all else fails claim anti-Mormon bigotry.

chemman on March 19, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Santo was nice enough to “play ball” and endorse him 4 years ago, and Romney’s going to pretend it means something now?? Just leave it to the Mittbotts to do their thing.
shannon76 on March 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM

.
So are you saying Richard wasn’t for Mittens, – before he was against him?

FlaMurph on March 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM

No ‘spark‘ for Mitt Romney in Illinois.

…The two-term former Illinois governor should be in Romney’s sweet spot — a pro-business Republican who held statewide office for 18 years and sometimes faced trouble from more orthodox conservatives.

But instead of backing Romney, Edgar is sitting out a Republican presidential race, he said, for the first time since getting into elective politics.

“Romney just doesn’t get folks real excited,” Edgar told POLITICO. “It seems like he can get about 33 percent and just about hovers there…”

Fallon on March 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Report: Backroom Deal Kept Romney On Illinois Ballot
TPM March 18, 2012
Pema Levy March 18, 2012,
(snip)
“I filed that challenge and they eventually asked me to withdraw my challenge in exchange for them withdrawing theirs,” Santorum’s Illinois state director Jon Zahm said. According to Politico’s account, Rutherford then went to the Romney campaign and asked them to withdraw the challenges to Santorum’s petitions. From there, both campaigns agreed to withdraw their respective challenges in what Zahm called a traditional Illinois “don’t ask, don’t tell policy.”

http://tinyurl.com/77camtr

And why should Republicans vote for either one of these clowns who partake in sleazy Chicago politics? The GOP has some ‘splainin’ ta do. Until then it’s -
Gingrich / Perry 2012
Let the two zealots play footsie, America needs a MAN at the helm, not another man-child.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on March 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I will caucus for Santorum on Saturday

That’s it for you, Willard. You’re done. Ed Morrissey is caucusing for Santorum. It’s over. Referee stops contest.

Emperor Norton on March 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM

There are only two reasons Rick is still in this race; 1) meddlesome Democrats in Ohio and Michigan which kept those races close and, 2) evangelicals who are voting against Mormanisn (see angryed.

Tater Salad on March 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I’m an evangelical? OK that’s about the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. Dude, I have been to church about 10 times in my life. All of them for weddings. I am pro-choice. LOL.

Nice try though.

PS: It’s Mormonism, not Mormanism. Moron.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM

America needs cojones. . . Perry/West 2012 Sarah Palin for Secretary of Energy

Pragmatic on March 19, 2012 at 9:56 AM

West would be better served as Secretary of Defense and Jindal would be great as Secretary of Energy. Perry needs to stay in Texas and Palin should stick to FOX News. Romney Rubio 2012!

leftophobe on March 19, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Another deep blue state won by Romney. The funny thing is Rombots actually think Democrats in Chicago will vote for Romney over Obama.

Mittbots are funny.

angryed on March 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM

It is, in fact, so deep blue that just 1.5 years ago it elected a Republican Senator. A rather meek one running against a deeply flawed candidate, but still a Republican. Illinois is not irreversibly lost. Heck, if C(r)ook County voting fraud can be blocked Illinois will turn purple on a dime. But just thinking of O’Mamba having to spend his stash on protecting his own turf makes me salivate.

Archivarix on March 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM

LOL! The Mitt Zombies have turned and are now gnawing each other.

What a perfect apocalypse of political stupidity!

ebrown2 on March 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Perhaps because Mitt Zombies have brains and Santorum Zombies don’t. :)

Archivarix on March 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I caucused for Romney in 2008 for the same reason

I did not know this about Ed, but that explains why he’s so soft on him and his tactics. I guess this also explains the double-standard (will attack the MSM for hypocrisy but not conservative media) with Drudge.

newtopia on March 19, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2