Santorum up in Colorado, Nevada with anti-Gingrich commercial

The Hill ^ | 1-31-12 | Sink

[VinL]

Fresh on the heels of announcing January fundraising numbers in excess of $4 million, Rick Santorum's presidential campaign announced a new television ad that will begin airing Tuesday in Colorado and Nevada.

The ad attacks Newt Gingrich as being too liberal for the GOP nomination by arguing that he shares many policy positions with President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

"All three supported radical cap and trade legislation that would destroy American jobs and drive up energy costs. All three supported giving illegal aliens some form of amnesty. All three sported the government health mandates which take away our freedom and is the core of ObamaCare. And all three of these politician's supported the Wall Street bailouts that was a slap in the face to the Tea Party," the narrator says.

It goes on to refer to the trio as "cap and trade loving, bailout supporting, soft on immigration, big-government mandating politicians."

The commercial is a sharp indictment of Gingrich, with whom Santorum has split more conservative voters in early primary contests. But the ad does little to attack Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican front-runner who is expected to lead in Nevada polling.

"Rick Santorum for President: he doesn't just talk a good conservative game, he lives it," the narrator says.

Nevada will caucus Feb. 4, with Colorado voters gathering 3 days later at caucus sites across that state.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

If Santorum had been vetted and attacked as Newt has, Santorum would NOT be doing as well as Newt is, and his negatives would be very high. In addition, while Santorum’s positions on social issue are praised/liked here on FR, they don't go over real well with the general population. In addition, those that want the spending under control, debt reduced and taxes lowered, don't see Santorum as the person who will do that. Have a nice day.

[phil413]

I agree that some of RS’s positions are somewhat unpalatable with the general population but unfortunately it will be very hard for Gingrich to undo the negatives that have built up over many years. Again, let me re-emphasize that if he’s the pick, I’ll support him. I’m more anti-Obama than pro-GOP. But I would just hope that everyone would support Romney if he’s the pick. I’ve heard time and again that he’s no better than Obama. Baloney! “The enemy of better is best”.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The poll in Missouri demonstrates logically a way that, if you want to beat Romney, having the 1st-place guy drop out strengthens your chance of doing so.

PPP Poll Missouri

In Missouri, the 3-way matchup has Gingrich ahead of Romney by 6%, good but within the margin of error. Santorum is behind Gingrich by 4%. (Gingrich 30%, Santorum 26%, Romney 24%). Conventional wisdom says if Santorum drops out, Gingrich runs away with the election.

But they polled head-to-head matchups:

Head-to head, Gingrich would defeat Romney in the state, 43-42, but Santorum would, 50-37.

Got that -- Gingrich ahead of Santorum by 4, and ROmney by 6. But without Santorum, Gingrich is essentially tied with Romney, losing 5% of his lead. If Gingrich drops out, Santorum runs away with the election, winning by 13%, and getting a clear majority.

So, if the poll accurately reflects what would happen in the election, GIngrich, the front-runner, should drop out so that Santorum can get an easy win over Romney, and win a majority of the votes.

That is what I call a "logical argument" for why it might be better for those of us who want to be Romney if the guy polling better drops out -- because the guy polling better has high negatives and a ceiling below 50%, while the guy polling 2nd is widely liked and has a much higher ceiling of support.

The situation in Ohio polling is similar, although Gingrich slightly improves there if Santorum is gone:

The primary is a three-way race between Gingrich (26%), Romney (25%), and Santorum (22%), with Paul at 11%. Gingrich would top Romney, 42-39, but Santorum would, 45-38.

3-way, Santorum is LAST, Gingrich is +1 on Romney. Without Santorum, GIngrich is +3, which is still a razor thin margin. But even though Santorum is 3rd in the 3-way, if the "front-runner" Gingrich drops out, Santorum wins easily by 7%, a better margin than Gingrich gets in either 3-way or head-to-head.

Now, these are just polls. But they are two polls that show, logically, HOW it could be that the "front-runner" dropping out is better than the guy running behind him dropping out.

If you want to scratch your head, go ahead. It seems "counter-intuitive", until you remember that there isn't a block of "conservative" voters who can interchangeably be assigned to whatever conservatives are running. Gingrich has long-standing negatives and has a ceiling. I know you understand that, because you know that Romney has a ceiling right now as well, and the principle is identical.

It isn't just important that you have enthusiastic supporters. You need to avoid committed opponents. If 60% of the electorate dislikes Gingrich and won't vote for Gingrich, the only way Gingrich can win is a 3-way race, so that Santorum can take the votes of the voters that won't vote for Gingrich, but would rather not vote for Romney. And it turns out, that if Gingrich voters are much more in the "anybody but Romney" category than Santorum voters are, Gingrich dropping out throws enough votes to Santorum to make it easier to beat Romney.

This is a logical argument, which doesn't mean it reflects how things would actually work. It is how things COULD work. It is also possible that Santorum would get plastered with negative ads and end up with high negatives as well. I'm not telling Gingrich to drop out, I'm saying that there is a logical reason NOT to ask Santorum to quit.

[Kenny Bunk]

Santorum is a skunk.

Chi paga? A cui bono?

Who picked up the tab? Whom does it benefit?

[Paperdoll]

>Rush told us today that the second choice for most Santorum voter, is Mitt Romney<

And people believed him? What the ! is Limbaugh saying such a thi8ng on the airways? ARush is part of the establishment? I guess he is!

[musicman]

IMHO, Romney is being set up like a Little League T-Ball for Obama to whack outta the park in Nov.

Not only does Romney’s “coronation” get rid of the Tea Party and “conservatives” for Rove and his RINO Country Club Status Quo bunch, it helps the dems keep the continuity of their “schtick”.

Obama and Romney are IDENTICAL politically, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the VERY important decision on permanently totally repealing Obamacare.

Obama can counter every political Romney arguement with “I know YOU are, but what am I” and clobber him over the head HARD with the 99% crap that he’s a 1%’er.

Geeee....that only leaves ONE “itty - bitty” difference.

Wanna guess what THAT is??????

Try “skin pigmentation”.

It worked for Obama BIG TIME in 2008. Romney is the ONLY candidate they can REALLY use it on because they are identical in almost every other way.

Romney WON'T attack Obama like he has Newt, because they will pin the "racist" tag on him so fast that his head will spin faster that his political flip-flops.

So Myth will "play nice" with Obama, he'll try to get everyone to sing "America The Beautiful" ( the fake crap he semms to be doing at ALL his Florida stops) and get KILLED in Nov, as is the GOP-e"plan" (see pic above), except Romney AND Rick don't seem to see it......YET.

Lil' Ricky WILL be "handed" the VP slot to "shut up" the "Santorum" and Tea Party "Conservative" people and with Romney's defeat, ensure Lil' Ricky won't be a problem to Rove and the GOP-E EVER AGAIN. With the Tea Party out of the way of BOTH parties for 2012 and 2016, Romney out of the way for 2012 AND 2016, the dems TOTALLY despised after 8 years of Obama, Rove and “the boys” can run Jeb for 2016 with NOBODY in their way.

OBTW, The pic below was taken last Friday afternoon Jan27th, 2012 , the day after "Bloody-Up Newt" Thursday by every RINO Country Clubber in this particular corner of the universe.

Jeb & George HW Bush & Obama Jan.27, 2012
Now, Obama has been in office for what, say 3 years?

How many photos of those three together have YOU seen??

Pretty much ALL the polls earier in the week had Newt leading in Florida, until the "suddenly" orchestrated RINO Newt attack which culminated Thursday before the debate, and THEN on Friday, I see THIS photo??

What in the heck could the three of them "constructively" have important enough in common to "get together" and talk about??

Maybe Barry just wanted ask them over to find out how "W" was doin', you know, the son and brother of the two guys in the pic who he STILL TO THIS MINUTE blames EVERYTHING bad that has happened to date in his administration on and two years before he replaced him in office???

Yeah, that's the ticket.

I have an idea, and I mentioned it in the post above the pic..

Newt and Sarah have been TRYING to warn the Tea Party and Conservatives about this BIG TIME!!

(Sorry, but my Reynolds Wrap cap dang near fell off when I saw it.)

THIS is why people are upset with Lil' Ricky. Either he is TOTALLY IGNORANT, or he's "in on the deal.

There is NO inbetween.

[gogogodzilla]

The question is, of course, did the government give you the permission to write this? After all, personal autonomy is something conservatives frown upon... at least, if Santorum had his way.

---

What makes conservatives better than liberals is that we look at an issue... and try to figure out what the solution is, ourselves. We don’t look to a lord and master for permission, or even for the answer.

At least, that’s what I always thought.

Santorum... and those that just take someone’s word as the holy gospel without trying to reason out why some idea is a good one... are seriously making me question just how ‘conservative’ many conservatives really are.

And you’ve managed to add onto that.

[Windflier]

You argue the case for Gingrich dropping out quite well, but as you stated a couple of times, it’s so counter-intuitive that many people will either balk at the logic, or question the underlying assumptions.

I’m in the second category.

Santorum’s actual performance in the race, to date, causes me to doubt the assumptions your case is based upon. Where the rubber has met the road, more voters have put their faith and trust in Gingrich than in Santorum, which is, in my opinion, the best measure of future performance we have.

Just based upon that, I would still argue that it’s Santorum who should drop out, and not Gingrich - not to mention the fact that all things considered, Gingrich is better equipped to handle the enormous task facing the next president.

Now, that is my opinion, and of course, yours may vary. Thanks for the civil exchange.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I want to be clear — I’m not personally arguing for Gingrich dropping out; I’m presenting what I believe is a logical argument for it, precisely so I can instead argue that we have insufficient information to call for Santorum to drop out.

And I only do THAT so I can then say that it is unreasonable to attack Santorum for not dropping out, or call his decision a clear case of him helping Romney. Because if I can show that Gingrich dropping out is better to stop ROmney than Santorum dropping out, and I can then show that we don’t know if Santorum dropping out is good or bad, how can we attack him for not acting rashly before we know what the outcome would be?

That is the extent of my argument and involvement. I urge no-one to change their own strategy; whether it is to vote for Gingrich or vote for Santorum. I’d just like civility amongst Freepers on the subject of which strategy is better, because there is an argument to be made either way.

I can’t imagine convincing a person in 1st place to drop out in order to make space for a lower-place person to take the lead. Now, having said that, I would note that Newt Gingrich SAID that was exactly what he was going to do after Iowa. He lost Iowa, but was leading in national polls, and said he was going to sacrifice himself to stop Romney.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Where the rubber has met the road, more voters have put their faith and trust in Gingrich than in Santorum

I wanted to address this separately. I think that is one way of looking at the results. But if you again think about the dynamics of a 3 or 4-person race, it is easy to see how that analysis COULD be faulty.

We can't actually say that "more voters have put 'their faith and trust' in Gingrich". What we can say is that more voters have expressed a preference for Gingrich than Santorum, in the current mix. It could be that every Gingrich supporter would also put their faith and trust in Santorum, but they just like Gingrich better. And if it is also true that the only reason Santorum people support him is because they could never support Gingrich, then what we have is a case where "2nd-choice" votes would push strongly to the lower-ranked contender.

We can't know which is true, unfortunately. You could get closer if we actually voted ranks rather than 1st-choice. The advantage of voting ranks is that you get a candidate who is the most acceptable to the organization. The disadvantage is you don't necessarily get the favored choice of the plurality of the organization.

Romney is a great example though of this. Assuming he has a ceiling of 40%, he is "1st-choice" of the plurality; but if you took into account 2nd choices, and if it was the case (it's not) that no Gingrich or Santorum voter would choose Romney, then we'd find that either Gingrich or Santorum were the consensus "acceptable" pick.

If I were to make an argument for a candidate, and I'm not quite ready to do so yet, I would argue (and would suggest Rush Limbaugh has said this in not so many words), that Santorum is the candidate who has the most overall "acceptability" in the republican party. He may not be first choice, but many Romney supporters could accept him, and many Gingrich supporters could accept him. They wouldn't be "happy", but they would be satistifed.

Then the question is, are we better off with a candidate who satisfies 80% of the party, or who energizes 40% and disgusts 40%? I don't say because I don't know if that is where we are, but it looks like it could be. BTW, Ron Paul is just a microcosim of this, a guy who is wildly loved by 10-15%, and vilified by a majority, so he'll never be the nominee, but he'll always be around. I take some satisfaction that Santorum has beaten Paul in the last two primaries.

[Sun]

“The Truth Regarding Santorum’s Endorsement of Arlen Specter
Posted on October 12, 2011 by Admin

“The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up,” said Santorum. “I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee.”

The former senator didn’t win over everyone with that, and bristled a bit at the end of his answer. “You questioned my judgment, and you have every right to do so. But please don’t question my intention to do what’s right for those little babies.”

I would reiterate that sentiment. You may think the decision was not a good one, but it was a decision made because Rick Santorum believed it was what he needed to do in order to ensure that judges who respect the right to life would not be impeded in their confirmation hearings. Apparently, this did not rankle Pat Toomey as much as it seems to rankle Santorum’s current poltical opponents considering that Toomey subsequently endorsed Rick Santorum in his bid for re-election. Meanwhile, Santorum’s record clearly and solidly indicates that he is a true believer in conservative principles across the board.”

excerpt http://blog.lisagraas.com/2011/10/12/the-truth-regarding-santorums-endorsement-of-arlen-specter/

I like Newt, too, just not as much as Rick Santorum, but why did Newt endorse RINO Dede?

Santorum endorsed CONSERVATIVE Hoffmann.

Don’t have double standards. None of them are perfect, but some of them are excellent.

[AnTiw1]

" Meanwhile, Santorum’s record clearly and solidly indicates that he is a true believer in conservative principles across the board.” "

If he had conservative principles, he would be fly fishing instead of sabotaging our only shot at a conservative president.

[Sun]

It’s Newt’s turn.

[Sun]

Unfortunately, some Republicans debate like libDems.

[Sun]

FL is a moderate state, and maybe even leaning liberal, which is why Romney did so well, and Newt and Santorum did not.

[Cboldt]

-- I might go to vote, sign the book, and then leave -- hoping they notice. --

Turn in an empty ballot.

[Sun]

Rich Santorum attacked Romney so eloquently on Romneycare that many said that Santorum won that debate!

Do you have a link to Newt’s ACU rating?

BOTH Newt and Santorum received great ratings, but Rick Santorum’s rating was a bit lower, probably because he voted AGAINST NAFTA. Voting against NAFTA is a good thing, but some “conservatives” don’t think so.

[Kenny Bunk]

WAKE UP FOOLS..the LEFT is doing an OUTSTANDING job of dividing and conquering us

The entire "Debate" series is proof of that. The MSM has stage-managed the entire affair, directing the candidates to act like blithering idiots, and then accurately ... for once ... faithfully reporting the stupidity and internecine assassinations. Brav-frickin'-0.

In the meantime, no Republican has shown himself to be a leader with a PROGRAM or a coherent PLAN. Motherhood (as in "I ain't gonna pay for killin' no li'l helpless babies.") and Apple Pie (God Bless the Red White and Blue, Omma real "conservative" patriot true!) ain't a coherent plan for saving this Republic from Euro-Socialism.

The Republican Party Establishment are "Fabian" Socialists. All they promise (hopefully) is to deliver us to Socialism at a somewhat slower pace than the Democrats, while both parties are firmly dedicated to protecting the interests that financially support them from Socialism's ravages.

With the astounding growth of a welfare benefits-dependent Third World population within our borders and the increased dumbing-down of the tattooed, pierced, and obese electorate, which cannot comprehend the looming economic catastrophe, we are heading for the rocks of history faster than that Italian ocean liner.

Ain't nowhere in The Constitution that says we are supposed to last forever or that we are under some blessèd dispensation from civil wars. Good luck, everybody.

[Kenny Bunk]

Romney is a prohomosexual, proabortion, leader in an anti-christian cult.

I'll get Ann Coulter to explain that to you. The fact that Mitt believes he will become a god on another planet and wears special undergarments does not mean that he belongs to a cult.

If you live in Massachusetts, you simply must, must I say, believe in and support gay marriage to the point of offering all those quaint Bed-and-Breakfasts a tax break on linen changes.

And Romney is not pro-abortion, except when speaking before a pro-abortion crowd ... and he doesn't believe it should be mandatory except in some cases, which he will explain to you after the election.

I suppose it is clear to you that I am a fervent supporter of Romney for President. Of Utah. Maybe out there in the clear desert air, they will understand this man.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I should have mentioned that step — we are electronic, but I beleive it can be done.

The problem is that our elections are pretty efficient, and they don’t report a lot of extraneous information. For example, when you CAN vote absentee, if the name you give doesn’t look “real”, they just count it as “other”, and they don’t report absentee counts other than the total.

I’m not sure they will report the total ballots cast, and there’s no write-in so you can’t even generate a report of “other” like you usually could.

I may have to vote Ron Paul.