Poll: Romney Clings To Lead Over Santorum in Arizona [Romney Kaput if MI and AZ Go Santorum]

Poll: Romney Clings To Lead Over Santorum in Arizona By Jonathan Easley - 02/15/12 Mitt Romney leads the GOP presidential field in Arizona, but Rick Santorum is closing in fast, according to a poll released on Wednesday by the American Research Group.

Romney leads with 38 percent, followed by Santorum at 31 percent, Newt Gingrich at 15 percent and Ron Paul at 11 percent.

In the same poll conducted in late January, Romney and Gingrich were tied for the lead in Arizona at 32 percent, while Santorum was mired in fourth place at 10 percent.

On Feb. 28, voters in Arizona and Michigan will head to the polls for the GOP presidential primaries.

According to an ARG poll in Michigan released earlier this week, Santorum leads with 32 percent, followed by Romney at 27 percent.

Romney, whose father George Romney was once governor of Michigan, was widely viewed as having an insurmountable advantage in the Wolverine State because of his close ties there, but Santorum has vaulted into contention on the strength of his surprising three-state caucus sweep last week in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri.

1. No doubt Gingrich has a good record. Romney, however, ran surpluses his last two years in office. He came in to a huge shortfall. He moved the state legislature to reduce spending by over $1 billion.

Yawn. Every state governor is required to balance the budget. Even Jerry Brown and Ill Gov Quinn have to balance the budget. A billion dollars? Walker in WI inherited 3.6 Billion deficit in a smallish state. Christie's predecessor in NJ spent an extra $2 billion between the time he won the election and Christie took office. Romney's feat, even in a hostile environment, is not exceptional. He also left his succcessor in bad shape financially.

2. I don’t agree that Capitalism is harsh and unpleasant. What Romney did epitomizes free markets.

Except for the most rabid libertarian, most of us are okay with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Large companies, especially those that benefited from TARP are not acting like a Free Market. Romney supported that stuff. He also seems to be anti-market to the degree that he seems satisfied in buying off the poor.

3. Sorry, but getting elected Governor in a hostile environment is proof of electability. So, does that mean we should back William Weld for president? Unlike Romney, he even managed to get RE-elected!

4. By the very definition of the word cult, Mormonism is not a cult.
I'd feel more comfortable with Mormons if they would distance themselves from bad Mormons like Bishop Romney. The Bay Buchanans and the Glenn Becks of this world should treat him the way believing Catholics treat Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius.

5. Yes, the winter olympics.

And he couldn't pick any decent judges as Governor of Massachusetts. Maybe we can have him as Undersecretary of Commerce or something.

But let me repeat myself one more time... you are just spiting your own party.

Freepers are indifferent to the party to the degree that it does not serve the end of conservatism. We have NO use for William Weld, Mayor Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lowell Weicker, Olympia Snowe, Mitt Romney and other RINOS.

Many of us want to kick these types out of the tent, and replace them with people who cling to Bibles and guns, but don't worry so much about marginal tax rates or having a seat at the table for government goodies (G.E. types). If we tolerate a Mitt Romney, then we have essentially stated that this was also bluster, and we'll take our manure sandwich from either party, with the Republican one having ketchup, and a new Romney shoved down our unwilling throat every four years. No thanks.

I guess we just disagree on electability. My belief is that he is the most electable in a general election. I don’t dislike Gingrich or Santorum or Paul. Great candidates. I just don’t see them winning in a general. Hey, I hope I’m proven wrong if they are nominated.

But, the primaries are really meaningless. Sure, I understand the concept of finding the best Republican or the best Conservative. Romney may be the most “liberal” of the Republicans, but it is still better than Obama. The “best” losing candidate is still the loser.

No. Romney IS Obama.

Romney appointed 2 judges that were members of homosexual rights groups. Massachusetts was gifted with homosexual "marriage" via the courts.

Romney supports gun restriction laws.

Romney supports a woman's "right to choose".

He did NOT run for a second term, because he knew he'd lose.

Romney is a LIBERAL.

Yeah, no doubt that a history making Republican Speaker of the House who will forever be in the history books for his stunning success as a history making conservative leader, has a “good record”.

You just breezed over the truth about Mitt Romney and his failed Governorship. The only credential for the guy is a single term as a disastrous Governor, during 20 years of active office seeking.

He was the 4th Republican Governor in a row, Massachusetts prefers Republican Governors, that is not getting elected “in a hostile environment” and “proof of electability”.

This is Romney’s second Presidential run where he is breaking spending records (something he does in all his campaigns) has all of the organization, the media, the money, yet he keeps showing as unelectable, as guys with no money, no organization, no real base, keep knocking him off.

Failing created a hostile environment for Romney. Mitt announced that he wanted to run for reelection, but his own polling showed that it was impossible, he was again, “unelectable”.

Romney proved that he lacked the ability to lead, convincing only 34% of his voters that he had that executive ability. Worse he hurt the state party, and lost the seat since then to the Democrats, successful politicians don’t do that.

So the $100 question is: If you had to make the choice, would you vote for Romney in the general election if he is nominated?

I would not, though I understand those who would. If I thought there was a chance that he wouldn't give us another Harry Blackmun or John Paul Stevens, I might have reconsidered.

I know you believe in good faith that Romney is the most electable of the remaining three (we'll leave Paul out for now.) I am of the opposite opinion, and believe that he would not survive an Obama onslught well, though he still might win overall, as Obama is SO on popular nationwide.

I think Santorum would win by more. I also maintain that Independents, are not, by and large, moderates. No, moderates tend to be liberal Republicans or not so liberal Democrats. Independents are all over the place ideologically, and are far more likely to vote based primarily on personality or intuition. Romney cannot play well to that segment. I do admit that Gingrich has a problem with the female electorate, but that Santorum does not in the same way. Santorum winning a large Dem leaning state with both urban and rural constituencies, and winning re-election before his later defeat shows he can play on a nationwide field, something Romney has yet to really demonstrate, as FL and NV are "funny" states.

My over-arching fear is for 2016 and beyond. This year is a battle for the soul of the Republican party. When Pat Buchanan ran against George the Elder in 1992, he knew he wasn't going to get the nomination. It was a warning shot to an out of tune president that he ought to call it a day, and let someone else take the mantle (Though not Buchanan himself). Bush chose not to heed the warning.

I can only see Romney cementing key aspects of Obamacare in a way that even Obama himself couldn't. I could also see his minions making sure that people like us are marginalized further, as we have picked a side. He wouldn't want any formal challenge in 2016.

For the good of the country, for the good of conservativism as a movement, and yes, for the ultimate good of the Republican Party, I could not vote for Romney.

getting elected Governor in a hostile environment is proof of electability

LOLOL!!!!!

Before this current run, Romney faced voters 22 times and lost 17 of those times.

Mormonism is not a cult

Then you know absolutely NOTHING about Mormons. They believe that "gods" created earth. They believe that they WILL become gods and rule their own planets. And there's a LOT more!

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.