Poll: Santorum takes first national lead

Dec 2011
322
0
Earth
#1
It appears Santorum's impressive three state primary wins a few days ago has benefited him greatly.

We will see if this translates into actual success.

Rick Santorum has taken the lead nationally in the Republican presidential race for the first time, a new poll showed.

Less than a week after besting Romney in primary contests in three states, Rick Santorum has a 15-point lead on the former Massachusetts governor, according to a national poll released Saturday by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling. Recent polls had shown Romney up about 10 points on Newt Gingrich, his nearest rival.

Santorum leads Mitt Romney 38 percent to 23 percent in the new poll, while Gingrich is in third place with 17 percent. Ron Paul comes in last with 13 percent.

This is the first major national poll to show Santorum in the lead. The closest he had come previously was after his surprise win in Iowa the first week of January, but even then, Romney performed 10 points better than Santorum nationally.

But Santorum has been riding a wave of momentum since his surprise performance on Tuesday, when he defeated the front-runner not only in Minnesota and Missouri, but also in Colorado, a supposed Romney stronghold. Santorum's campaign has said he has raised more than $2 million since Tuesday, and he was the biggest attraction on Saturday when about 10,000 activists packed the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

Some of Santorum's success in the new poll may be attributed to declining support for both Romney and Gingrich. Romney's favorability rating has declined substantially in PPP's polling and now stands at 44 percent — just one percentage point higher than the 43 percent who say they disapprove. Santorum remains highly popular, with 64 percent saying they approve and just 22 percent viewing him negatively. Gingrich's numbers are almost identical to those of Romney.

Santorum is also besting Romney and the others with key demographic groups, including self-described very conservative voters, Tea Party voters and evangelicals.

"It's important to keep in mind, though, that fewer than half of his voters are firmly committed to him," said Dean Debnam, the polling firm's president. "When he comes under attack in the coming days, his lead could evaporate just as quickly as it was created."

The survey of 656 Republican primary voters was conducted Feb. 9-10 using automated telephone interviews and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/210101-poll-santorum-takes-lead-nationally-for-first-time
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#2
I guess I am fine with Brother Santorum. But I am afraid he can't win when it counts. He scares the non conservative and the the God haters. I don't think we have enough Republicans to elect him president.:unsure:
 
Dec 2011
322
0
Earth
#3
I guess I am fine with Brother Santorum. But I am afraid he can't win when it counts. He scares the non conservative and the the God haters. I don't think we have enough Republicans to elect him president.:unsure:
Agreed. He is not nearly as electable as Romney.

And that puts the Republicans in a pickle. Elect the man you like or the one that has the best shot at defeating Obama?

Decisions, decisions.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#4
Agreed. He is not nearly as electable as Romney.

And that puts the Republicans in a pickle. Elect the man you like or the one that has the best shot at defeating Obama?

Decisions, decisions.
You know some people really get into "sending a message". I think winning the election would send the message very nicely.:)
 
Dec 2011
322
0
Earth
#6
Sorry guys, it doesn't matter who the GOP chooses...you're gonna have another 4 years to whine about Obama. :D
I agree for now. Obviously, matters can change as the wind blows. But this is not my first rodeo. I have been around politics just about as long as you, my friend, and I just do not see Obama losing to any of the GOP candidates.

Santorum would be the nail in the coffin for Republicans. He is FAR too conservative to sway the Independents from Obama. And as anyone who follows politics knows, Independents decide most elections.

This is why I believe conservatives will hold their nose and elect Romney. Not because they like him more, but because he has the best chance of defeating Obama.

Right now, in this moment in time, I give Romney no more than a 35% chance of defeating Obama.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#7
Sorry guys, it doesn't matter who the GOP chooses...you're gonna have another 4 years to whine about Obama. :D
If it is Romney (or possibly even Newt), the GOP has a chance and the election will come down to how the economy fares over the months leading up to the election. It won't be about the candidates so much as how mad Americans are with what is going on at the time.
 
Dec 2011
322
0
Earth
#8
If it is Romney (or possibly even Newt), the GOP has a chance and the election will come down to how the economy fares over the months leading up to the election. It won't be about the candidates so much as how mad Americans are with what is going on at the time.
Indeed.

The unemployment rate before election time will be the most important number in the race for the White House.

If it is 5-6%, I do not believe Obama will have a difficult time winning reelection.

If it is hovering around 7% or higher, he may have a problem.
 
Jan 2012
43
0
Jax
#9
If it is Romney (or possibly even Newt), the GOP has a chance and the election will come down to how the economy fares over the months leading up to the election. It won't be about the candidates so much as how mad Americans are with what is going on at the time.
I'll have to disagree.

With the focus on the GOP candidates, what you haven't seen is hardly anything on Obama's successes.

As to the economy, all I have to do is look at my 401K when Bush left office and where it is now.

Sure, it hasn't come back as fast as Obama predicted or wanted...but no one can legitimately claim that we aren't in much better shape now than when Obama took over.

It won't matter whether it's Gingrich or Romney, when it comes time for hardcore campaigning...I think Obama will be able to tout enough things to sway the undecided middle.

Which are always the ones who decide elections anyway.


Nope, this time around the GOP is toast.

What they better concentrate on, is holding on to the House.
.
 
Dec 2011
322
0
Earth
#10
I'll have to disagree.

With the focus on the GOP candidates, what you haven't seen is hardly anything on Obama's successes.

As to the economy, all I have to do is look at my 401K when Bush left office and where it is now.

Sure, it hasn't come back as fast as Obama predicted or wanted...but no one can legitimately claim that we aren't in much better shape now than when Obama took over.

It won't matter whether it's Gingrich or Romney, when it comes time for hardcore campaigning...I think Obama will be able to tout enough things to sway the undecided middle.

Which are always the ones who decide elections anyway.


Nope, this time around the GOP is toast.

What they better concentrate on, is holding on to the House.
.
Gandy, I have a hypothetical question for you. Let us just assume for a moment that, for arguments sake, the economy regresses and the unemployment rate falls back over 9% by the time the 2012 elections rolls around.

Given that hypothetical scenario, do you still believe Obama would be a shoe-in?
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#11
I'll have to disagree.

With the focus on the GOP candidates, what you haven't seen is hardly anything on Obama's successes.

As to the economy, all I have to do is look at my 401K when Bush left office and where it is now.

Sure, it hasn't come back as fast as Obama predicted or wanted...but no one can legitimately claim that we aren't in much better shape now than when Obama took over.

It won't matter whether it's Gingrich or Romney, when it comes time for hardcore campaigning...I think Obama will be able to tout enough things to sway the undecided middle.

Which are always the ones who decide elections anyway.


Nope, this time around the GOP is toast.

What they better concentrate on, is holding on to the House.
.
The "touting" is only going to work if the economy looks decent. If it is back in the crapper with everyone yelling further stagnation, further recession, etc., then the "touting" won't work. We are both basically saying the same thing in that regard.

One thing though. The "successes" of Obama as far as the economy goes are arguably not his successes depending on what we are talking about. Also, they could be relative successes compared to failures but may very well be smaller successes than had he not done (or done) what he did. Causality is not easily proven in these matters. Of course politicians like to take credit for anything good and blame the others for anything bad. Unfortunately, most of the population does not really understand causality and the economy and hence, the political finger-pointing works out as far as votes go. And that is why what you are saying here and I am saying here in regards to votes stands.
 
Jan 2012
43
0
Jax
#12
Gandy, I have a hypothetical question for you. Let us just assume for a moment that, for arguments sake, the economy regresses and the unemployment rate falls back over 9% by the time the 2012 elections rolls around.

Given that hypothetical scenario, do you still believe Obama would be a shoe-in?

A big part will depend on the reasons it slips.

Such as an effort by House Repub's to block any legislation that might help, just to try and make Obama and the Dem's look bad.

I still think that most Americans are smart enough to understand the underlying reasons and determine who has the best chance of guiding us back to better times.

.
 
Jan 2012
43
0
Jax
#13
The "touting" is only going to work if the economy looks decent. If it is back in the crapper with everyone yelling further stagnation, further recession, etc., then the "touting" won't work. We are both basically saying the same thing in that regard.

One thing though. The "successes" of Obama as far as the economy goes are arguably not his successes depending on what we are talking about. Also, they could be relative successes compared to failures but may very well be smaller successes than had he not done (or done) what he did. Causality is not easily proven in these matters. Of course politicians like to take credit for anything good and blame the others for anything bad. Unfortunately, most of the population does not really understand causality and the economy and hence, the political finger-pointing works out as far as votes go. And that is why what you are saying here and I am saying here in regards to votes stands.
Here's the deal, as far as the right goes Obama is only to blame for the failures and none of the successes.

The crippling of Al Queda and removal of Osama and Anwar Al Awlaki are actually being touted by the right as Bush's success.

I mean shoot guys, how ridiculously silly (and desperate) is that?

As to the economy, the advantage the right has is that we will never know whether the Repub's could have done any better...or even worse.

As to the election, with this slate of GOP candidates...I think it would take a major faux pas to keep Obama from being reelected.

.
 
Jan 2012
136
0
#14
The crippling of Al Queda and removal of Osama and Anwar Al Awlaki are actually being touted by the right as Bush's success.
Bush should of course get some sort of credit for that. Bush is the reason the NATO forces are located in that part of the world from the very beginning, Obama just continued American presence in that part of the world.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#15
Sorry guys, it doesn't matter who the GOP chooses...you're gonna have another 4 years to whine about Obama. :D
Not whining about O'bama! He is just a suit sitting in a chair to me. He can get every vote in every state and not change my opinion of him. I was disappointed in Bush. But not in Obama. I knew he could not do all that crap he promised the weeping eyed voters that elected him. There was never a president that could do what he was elected to do. So he had to fail. And in my opinion he did. Now if the the voters want another term like his first they deserve hearing him and his people say "Just get it done" like they are speaking to a child.:D
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#17
Here's the deal, as far as the right goes Obama is only to blame for the failures and none of the successes.

The crippling of Al Queda and removal of Osama and Anwar Al Awlaki are actually being touted by the right as Bush's success.

I mean shoot guys, how ridiculously silly (and desperate) is that?



.
Actually neither president deserves credit for Osama. Any American sitting in that office would have sent them in to get Osama. The boots on the ground guys deserve 100% of the credit in my opinion. But then there are those that want to claim credit for themselves while sitting safely at the house.
 
Jan 2012
43
0
Jax
#18
Actually neither president deserves credit for Osama. Any American sitting in that office would have sent them in to get Osama. The boots on the ground guys deserve 100% of the credit in my opinion. But then there are those that want to claim credit for themselves while sitting safely at the house.
You are completely ignoring the pressure on the person who gives the green light.

Had it failed, you don't think there would be screaming about how Obama screwed it up?

Even some of those on the right (the honest ones), have said that Obama made a "gutsy call."

Who took the blame for the Iranian hostage fiasco?

I'll bet you blame Carter for that one...now don't you? :D


.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#19
Who took the blame for the Iranian hostage fiasco?

I'll bet you blame Carter for that one...now don't you? :D


.
Not really. See I was still a Democrat when Carter was president. I was one for 22 years. Knocked on doors and put up signs.
My mother and her whole family vote democrat ever who runs for anything.:)
 
Dec 2011
322
0
Earth
#20
Actually neither president deserves credit for Osama. Any American sitting in that office would have sent them in to get Osama. The boots on the ground guys deserve 100% of the credit in my opinion. But then there are those that want to claim credit for themselves while sitting safely at the house.
AK Gandy said:
You are completely ignoring the pressure on the person who gives the green light.

Had it failed, you don't think there would be screaming about how Obama screwed it up?

Even some of those on the right (the honest ones), have said that Obama made a "gutsy call."
You both are correct, in my humble opinion.

Many people deserve credit for OBL's death. The team that got him, the pilots, the President, and the countless people from the array of intelligence agencies that helped locate him.

It was a team effort of the ultimate kind.
 

Similar Discussions