After NV, tally would be approximately
Romney 51 Newt 45
when FL vote divided per RNC rules!
Click t-shirt to Donate to Newt Gingrich
Washington DC 20003
end the FL fiasco NOW! Play by the rules!
Posted on 02/06/2012 6:59:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Missouri’s “beauty contest” primary on Tuesday could be Rick Santorum’s big chance. If he defeats Mitt Romney in that event, as at least one poll shows he is poised to do, the punditocracy and public alike might finally recognize the considerable upside he would offer Republicans as their presidential nominee.
Rick Santorum can win the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum can indeed beat Barack Obama in the fall. And Rick Santorum can and would govern at least as conservatively as Ronald Reagan did.
The evidence of his principled, mainstream conservatism is unambiguous, as is his record of winning long-shot races. What hasn’t been fully understood yet is why, and how, Santorum could win the Republican nomination and the presidency.
Let’s start with a few underappreciated realities about opinion polls held so far in advance of a general election. First, favorable/unfavorable ratings, along with the level of name identification, are far more important than direct “horse race” numbers. Second, poll “internals,” along with focus-group data if possible, should be interpreted to assess how much growth potential a candidate has, along with what his downside political risks are.
If a candidate has been widely known, and widely disliked, for a long, long time, that candidate has little room for growth. Very few public officials in American history, for instance, have as longstanding a record of horribly unfavorable poll numbers as Newt Gingrich has had for 17 years now. (His particularly dreadful polling problems among women, for instance, seem flat-out insurmountable.) Santorum, on the other hand, is far less well known, so he has a greater chance to move polls in either direction as voters get to know him better. The interesting thing to note here is that he continues to do better in polls the more he is known to the general public. That’s a serious sign of growth potential. Even better, even as the general public was first really looking at him, Santorum already was doing as well or better than Mitt Romney in head-to-head matchups against Obama in the key states of Florida and North Carolina.
Within the GOP, as Bill Kristol argues, Santorum probably has a better chance to defeat Mitt Romney head to head than Gingrich does. Polls bear that out. A number of polls also show that whereas a significant portion of Santorum voters would prefer Romney to Gingrich (this is Gingrich’s polarizing nature again coming into play), the vast majority of Gingrich voters would move to Santorum in a two-man race against Romney. That’s why, one on one, Santorum can beat Romney but Gingrich can’t.
When the “internals” are analyzed, Santorum rates particularly high on personal character, on sincerity, and on steadfastness of principle. Those are bedrock traits that, over a long campaign, help secure a voter’s comfort level with a candidate. A comparison with Reagan is in order here. While Santorum certainly hasn’t shown Reagan’s preternatural communication skills or sheer — almost magical — personal likeability, what matters in a race against a weak incumbent in a weak economy is that voters give themselves the psychological go-ahead for changing something as important as the president. Fear of the unknown runs strong. Even against an absurdly weak Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was only in the last week that voters swung sharply Reagan’s way: They needed reassurance, from watching his demeanor in debates, that he wasn’t the nuclear cowboy the Left tried to portray. Santorum’s palpable decency and sincerity can offer a similar reassurance against Obama. Someone as volatile as Gingrich cannot.
Santorum’s track record also indicates that he wears well over time. Witness his success in the Iowa caucuses, where voters had many months to size up the candidates. Witness his four upset (or at best even-money) victories in Pennsylvania. He doesn’t offer flash and sizzle, but in a long campaign, such as in the media-intensive slog that is a general-election presidential race, his personal and political virtues have time to become more apparent.
This is especially true when one considers that he has come so far already despite being the least well-funded of any candidate in the race. Santorum knows how to live off the land and still find ways to win. In the fall campaign, though, money will be no problem for him. The stakes are so high that no Republican-leaning donor will stay on the sidelines. If Santorum can compete as well as he has without a big war chest, imagine what he can do with serious financial resources behind him.
Meanwhile, he’s steady as a rock. For all of Gingrich’s and Romney’s vaunted debating skills, both of them have put forth at least two real clunkers of debate performances. Santorum hasn’t had a single bad debate or a single major stumble, and his reviews have become only more favorable with each contest. In a race where the economic lay of the land disfavors the incumbent, flash matters less than solidity in a challenger. It probably won’t require some sort of game-changing debate performance for a Republican to defeat Obama — but a game-changing gaffe or embarrassment could well lose it. Of all the Republican candidates, Santorum has shown himself the least prone to such gaffes.
Meanwhile, conservative leaders finally are beginning to rally around Santorum. Just in the last week they have begun to pour in. In Nevada, he secured the backing of tea party favorite Sharron Angle, while Gingrich is reportedly fading. In Colorado, Santorum achieved an absolutely remarkable troika of endorsements: anti-illegal-immigration hardliner Tom Tancredo and solid mainstream conservative Bob Schaffer, both former House members, along with the far more “establishment” (but still clearly conservative) former lieutenant governor Jane Norton. If he did that on a national scale, it would be like securing the backing of the Buchanan wing, the original Reagan wing, and the Bob Michel wing of the GOP.
Also stepping up for Santorum in the past week were conservative columnists extraordinaire Michelle Malkin and David Limbaugh. They join a growing list of dozens of key state legislators across the country and, quite significantly, nationally known conservative worthies such as Richard Viguerie, Gary Bauer, Michael Farris, James Dobson, Elaine Donnelly, Colin Hanna, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Boone, and Maggie Gallagher, along with the well-publicized votes of social conservative leaders who met in Texas a few weeks back, as announced by Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins.
It’s also hard to find a major national conservative leader who thinks poorly of Santorum. (Gingrich is just the opposite.) While they haven’t endorsed, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, William Bennett, and NR’s own Rich Lowry and Kathryn Lopez are among the many who have had plenty of kind things to say about him. He could unify the Right, whereas the viciously bitter fights between Romney and Gingrich make it very clear that large numbers of Republican activists feel too passionately against one of the other two to lend any real assistance if their disfavored candidate gets the nomination.
All of which is to say that Santorum’s potential for electoral strength is good, while his risk of disaster is rather low. Right now the only thing keeping him from being a clear winner is the failure of even more Reaganite leaders — all of whom know him to be a dependable, full-spectrum conservative — to stand up for him in the same way that he has stood up for conservative principles for so long. With Malkin, Angle, Limbaugh, and Bob Schaffer now coming on board, that odd reluctance might be coming to an end.
If it does, watch Rick Santorum surge again.
— Quin Hillyer is a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom and a senior editor for The American Spectator.
No, he isn’t and no, he can’t.
Reminds me of an Everly Brothers oldie...
“Dream, dream dream dream, dream, dream dream dream, dream...”
Because he’s not, and he can’t.
Maybe because he’s NOT a conservative? Look at his voting record (which he politely never mentions). It’s big government spending all the way, and he even gave his union buddies a break by voting AGAINST the right to work law.
I know......only the great messiah known as newt leroy....newt is and can...despite the fact that a case of vd is more popular than he is among the general voters
Santorum's not perfect, by a longshot but he's more reliably conservative than the intellectually elastic Newt is and he has the added bonus of NOT having Newt's sordid past attached to him.
You gotta give Rick Santorum credit, he has chalked up quite a few close 3rd and fourth place victories so far and it looks like he’s poised to continue that streak all the way to the convention.
Not a great communicator. Sorry, but in this media-mad age, it matters....a lot.
For starters, tell him to stop grinding his teeth.
RE: Look at his voting record (which he politely never mentions). It’s big government spending all the way,
ALL THE WAY? AS IN ALL THE TIME?
SOURCE: http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
Rick Santorum on Budget & Economy
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
_____________________________
Rick Santorum on Health Care
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted NO on blocking medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
No, please, no more (not you, just this entire thing)
We need to get behind Newt before it’s too late.
The media has not won yet.
He’ll get my vote in Michigan.
That describes 20 million people including myself...should I run?
And Gingrich knows this, he's in it for himself. If he really cared about defeating Obama, He'd put aside his Galaxy Class ego and throw his support behind the only conservative who can, Rick Santorum.
RE: Because he’s not, and he can’t.
SOURCE:
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
Rick Santorum on Welfare & Poverty
Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Voted NO on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
Tax credits to promite home ownership in distressed areas. (Apr 2003)
______________________________
Rick Santorum on Tax Reform
Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the ‘marriage penalty’. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes
__________________________
Rick Santorum on Social Security
Supports privatization if voluntary. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (May 1996)
_________________________________
Rick Santorum on Jobs
Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on repealing Clinton’s ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Voted NO on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record
_________________________________
As for him not being able to beat Obama...
SOURCE:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290180/rasmussen-santorum-45-obama-44-robert-costa
Here’s the Feb 4 Rasmussen Poll.
Rasmussen: Santorum 45, Obama 44
The latest Rasmussen tracking poll offers some encouragement:
In a potential Election 2012 matchup, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is at 45% while President Obama earns 44%. This is the first time in any poll that Santorum has led the president. Several other GOP challengers have led the president a single time in the polls including Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich. Each man briefly held the lead while they were surging in the polls, only to fall quickly. It remains to be seen what will happen to Santorum’s support.
What has happened to the Republican Party? Seriously. The limited government conservatives get nowhere and we are left in this cycle as well as the last cycle with candidates who, to one degree or another, have a love affair with government. Santorum talks the right talk but his voting record — from 1992 through 2006 — reveals a populist. Someone who is conservative on social issues like abortion and gay marriage and moderate (to downright liberal) on expanding government. And Rick was the co-founder, with Tom DeLay, of the Republican’s “K Street Project” which was about as far from limited government as you can get. Rick voted and even floor-managed votes to push Bush’s entitlement expansions. Then there is Newt, who arguably has a good record from the 90s. But then look at all the times he’s gone off the reservation sitting with Nancy on the couch, supporting Freddie and Fannie, etc. Then there’s Romney — enough said. Then you get someone with a limited government record like Perry and he falls apart. I don’t understand it. The Gods must be conspiring to keep Obama in office.
RE: and i heard he wants a “humane” immigration policy
SOURCE:
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted NO on allowing illegal aliens to participate in
Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted NO on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
Nice analytical, dispassionate examination of the facts. Have you thought about a career in media?
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.