Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum surges into the lead (National poll Santorum 38%, Romney 23%)
Public Policy Polling ^ | 02/11/2012 | Public Policy Polling

Posted on 02/11/2012 6:19:11 AM PST by Rational Thought

Riding a wave of momentum from his trio of victories on Tuesday Rick Santorum has opened up a wide lead in PPP's newest national poll. He's at 38% to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul.

Part of the reason for Santorum's surge is his own high level of popularity. 64% of voters see him favorably to only 22% with a negative one. But the other, and maybe more important, reason is that Republicans are significantly souring on both Romney and Gingrich. Romney's favorability is barely above water at 44/43, representing a 23 point net decline from our December national poll when he was +24 (55/31). Gingrich has fallen even further. A 44% plurality of GOP voters now hold a negative opinion of him to only 42% with a positive one. That's a 34 point drop from 2 months ago when he was at +32 (60/28).

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012polls; election; happydance; mittromney; newt; polls; ricksantorum; santorum; santorum2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 461-463 next last
To: C. Edmund Wright
Yelp it's not the action, it's the lying about the action that gets politicians in trouble every time...When will they learn?
121 posted on 02/11/2012 7:51:12 AM PST by hoosiermama (Stand with God and Sarah, the Gipper and Newt will be standing next to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

I don’t like Santorum personally but could get behind him, and am interested in what Reagan Democrats he could peel off.

He can carry the ethanol industry wherever they’re moonshining it, that’s a plus, and maybe religious independents.

122 posted on 02/11/2012 7:51:42 AM PST by txhurl (Mormonism = Sharia by White people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Cool it with personal smears.
In 2006 the entire GOP was wiped out thanks to the ABC News Mark Foley October surprise and the Iraqi war trashing with no Bush counter attack to justify the war.
Second newt has never run or won a state wide race only gerrymandered congressional races so he is the inexperienced one here .

123 posted on 02/11/2012 7:52:11 AM PST by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GulfBreeze

Ask anyone. And then ask yourself this: is what I say about Santorum true or not because that is the only thing that should matter to you.

Because you’re going to totally go bass backwards in how you try and connect the dots. So let me help you out. I support who I support because of the truth about his opponents - but you will no doubt assume I say what I say because of who I support. Therefore I am loathe to play your little mind game.

BUT FTR, Newt. And the reasons are well documented in my archives at American Thinker and all over the web - and all over hundreds and hundreds of posts here.

124 posted on 02/11/2012 7:52:21 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: bjcoop
I am not out to destroy Santorum. Santorum has not been vetted and he needs to be. If he can't get past conservatives/Republicans he will not get past Obama. FACT.
125 posted on 02/11/2012 7:52:27 AM PST by LuvFreeRepublic ( (#withNewt))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

As I see it, in a Romney-Obama matchup, Romney will lose much of the conservative vote, who will stay home or avoid that lever by his name.
In a Santorum-Obama matchup, Santorum will lose the moderates, the mushy, the independents. And there are more of those.
Romney would lose big. Santorum would lose bigger.
Neither one is strong on anything but platitudes that serve to fig-leaf their shortcomings of record.
But in a couple of weeks Santorum is going to be hamburger anyway. He’s just the anti-Romney du jour.

126 posted on 02/11/2012 7:55:10 AM PST by Lady Lucky (Public education -- government cheese for the brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Your personal attacks on Rick are overrun the top and cool with the snide comments about me if you don’t want the admin involved real quick .
Your memory of 2006 is wrong it was The Mark Foley election surprise which Are
The facts

127 posted on 02/11/2012 7:56:48 AM PST by ncalburt (NO MORE WIMPS need to apply to fight the Soros Funded Puppet !H)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

And unlike Newt, he’s an establishment candidate

The notion that Gingrich is not “establishment” is laughable. He’s been a Washington insider forever.

Coming from an anti-Perry troll like you, however, I understand your political ignorance.

128 posted on 02/11/2012 7:56:54 AM PST by magritte (Nevermind)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: stars & stripes forever

If Santorum could win delegates from states that he could never win in a general election, such as MN, IL, or maybe WI, that would be really ironic.

129 posted on 02/11/2012 7:58:33 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, less baggage, articulate, passionate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
We need a constitutional conservative, not a prancing dandy.

That's why Santorum won't win.

130 posted on 02/11/2012 7:58:37 AM PST by Rudder (The Main Stream Media is Our Enemy---get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: LuvFreeRepublic

You make a very important and over looked point. Santorum has NOT been vetted. Consider that Chuck Norris understands Santorum better than Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin do. Why? Santorum has been ignored with Newt and Mitt’s ridiculous obsession with each other.

I think I can say with some confidence that as the truth of Santorum’s liberal record comes out, you will see Rush and Levin start to back away from him a bit.

But a word of warning to Newt’s folks - you damned well better start getting some of this stuff out there now before Levin and Rush become too invested in their love of Santorum to admit they were wrong.

131 posted on 02/11/2012 7:58:57 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Reagan was a proponent of both.

You must have both, but the right way is to do whatever it takes to CUT GOVERNMENT. Otherwise you kill our economy and it won't matter anyway. Reagan did his best - he SLOWED government growth. But a sustained effort long enough could actually do it. What if a President simply removed a bunch of cabinet departments (most of them are useless). He could do stuff like that.

Otherwise, as has been said so often, we're just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

132 posted on 02/11/2012 7:59:11 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

You may be right, but how do you think Newt can possibly prevail with his adverse gender gap? Maybe the American people are truly still stuck on Obama, and nothing will matter.

133 posted on 02/11/2012 8:01:18 AM PST by Theodore R. (Forget the others: It's Santorum's turn, less baggage, articulate, passionate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
The reason we will lose this election is, mostly based on the fact that there is no stability among our side. Hell, they can't stay with a candidate any longer than a few days, or a week tops.

This not only reveals how weak this voting block is, it also shows how ignorant most of the voters in regards to the facts or details about the candidates, truly is.

You are absolutely correct about Santorum, but you get viciously attacked for rightfully pointing it out, complete with history and documentation to back up your information about him. I can say that I have fully investigated Santorum and find the same alarming things from his past, but I have also been attacked for pointing his many contradictions, out to the forum.

This blind, impulsive stampede and Lemming mentality will only prove to ruin us later. It always does.

134 posted on 02/11/2012 8:01:28 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky
Santorum is a loser. Sorry, but he simply is.

The good folks in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri and Iowa don't seem to think so.

Of the four remaining, Santorum has won statewide in a big league state that is not known for being friendly to conservatives. He won twice, and lost big once. Romney didn't even attempt to run for re-election in his smallish state. Gingrich and Paul have never won a general election in anything larger than a congressional district.

Even if Santorum is not your cup of tea, he is stronger against an insurance mandate than Romney or Gingrich. We don't need George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan to beat Barack Obama. We need a man who is not easily slimed by the Obama-meisters, who will stick to his game plan, take advantage of the breaks that come his way, can't easily be cast as a meanie, and knows how to spend campaign $$$ wisely. That man is Santorum.

Vote for whoever has a better chance of beating Romney in your state. In Georgia and Alabama, vote Gingrich. In Virginia, vote for Ron Paul (our convention needs a spectacle). In Michigan and Wisconsin, vote Santorum.

Gingrich and Santorum backers:
Promote your guy.
Attack Romney.
Attack Obama.

135 posted on 02/11/2012 8:01:51 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (May Mitt Romney be the Paul Tsongas of 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ncalburt

You have zero reading comprehension or you’re just being an obtuse ass on purpose.

So Burt, I will write R E A L SLOW for you now. YES, the Foley stuff and a lot of other crap is why Rick lost. I GET THAT. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT.

What ticks me off about Santorum and many of his supporters is that they can’t stand the truth. The truth is that Santorum RAN AS A WEENIE MODERATE in 2006. That’s not why he lost, but it is how he ran.

Now he claims he’s the true conservative, and it’s not true.

So BURTboy, I’ll try one more time. My point is NOT THAT HE LOST 06 - my point is HOW HE RAN 06 compared with what he says today about HOW HE RAN 06.

If you can’t read, do not respond.

136 posted on 02/11/2012 8:02:23 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: All

I no longer care about numbers. Perry was my first choice and Gingrich second. I am now for Gingrich 100% and will support him until he wins or quits. If Gingrich drops out, I will no longer be supporting anyone for president, I will only be voting against candidates.

137 posted on 02/11/2012 8:03:20 AM PST by Irenic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: txhurl

In my opinion, the Reagan Democrats are all dead. Those were white middle class folks who were part of the WWII generation who worked in manufacturing and the like. Most of them married.

I don’t think that group exists anymore, and if it did, we would have a lot more conservative dems in congress now.

I think the white males in what would have been the Reagan democrat mold are now voting GOP anyways.

Thus the GOP has to figure out how to attract younger voters and the suburban soccer Moms. I think Santorum and Newt scare the hell out of both of those groups.

Romney isn’t a good candidate either because he’s obviously going backwards the more people see of him during the past three months.

I think we are in trouble.

138 posted on 02/11/2012 8:03:41 AM PST by SteveAustin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
You're just flat out wrong.

The 2006 election in PA was all about the war in Iraq. Democrats did an excellent job of making PA an anti war state while Santorum was a supporter of our Military action. Added to that was a candidate (similar to Obama) that the media promoted. Still to this day, there has been little vetting of the Senator. Almost nothing is known about Bob Casey Jr. except that he is the son of a very popular ex Governor (Bob Casey Sr.).

Now, you might be able to make an argument that if Santorum did so poorly against Casey, he could do poorly against Obama. But, times have changed and the war in Iraq is no longer a front-line issue.

What could become an issue, perhaps even the leading issue, is the threat from Iran. If this comes to fruition, Santorum would be Obama’s worst nightmare.

139 posted on 02/11/2012 8:04:14 AM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

I fear you’re right.

Per se, I don’t have anything “against” Santorum. He was important in getting welfare reform passed and was a part of Newt’s own ‘94 Revolution.

However, although his fiscal and economic record (save for the Medicare Prescription Drug fiasco) is probably above-average, he’s known primarily as a SoCon type which I fear won’t sell well this cycle. He also can’t play the assertive role (which is needed against a d-bag like Obama) without coming across like a whiny, sanctimonious prick.

140 posted on 02/11/2012 8:04:14 AM PST by RockinRight (If you're waiting to drink until you find pure water, you're going to die of dehydration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 461-463 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson