Survey Says: Santorum’s Social Views Killing Him in Michigan

There’s a chance Rick Santorum may still scrape out a win in Michigan tomorrow. This morning’s Public Policy Polling survey has Mitt Romney leading him by just a few points, 39 percent to 37 percent. But the internal numbers look worse for Santorum, and his ongoing slide in the state seems to be due to his focus on social issues:

One place Santorum may have hurt himself in the last week is an overemphasis on social issues. 69 percent of voters say they’re generally more concerned with economic issues this year to only 17 percent who pick social issues. And with the overwhelming majority of voters more concerned about the economy, Romney leads Santorum 45-30. Santorum’s winning those more concerned about social issues 79-12 but it’s just not that big a piece of the pie.

The last week of the campaign in Michigan has seen significant damage to Santorum’s image with GOP voters in the state. His net favorability has declined 29 points from +44 (67/23) to now only +15 (54/39). Negative attacks on Romney meanwhile have had no negative effect with his favorability steady at +20 (57/37). Two weeks ago Santorum’s net favorability in Michigan was 34 points better than Romney’s. Now Romney’s is 5 points better than Santorum’s. Those kinds of wild swings are the story of the GOP race.

“Newt is just as conservative as Rick on social and religious issues,”

You mean the guy who came in behind Paul? You mean the guy who has had 3 wives? You mean the guy who supported liberal establishment candidates in the last midterm congressional elections?

That guy?

I’m sort of for Santorum by default. Part of that default position is the widespread belief by so many gullible people that Newt is somehow THIS time committed to something (this time it’s conservatism). Newt is committed to his own political ambition. He will be whatever he has to be to become president.

The establishment chose Romney over Newt, so Newt had to become something else.

You cannot with a straight face claim that Newt is a social conservative when compared with Santorum. You cannot compare Newt - a Catholic of Convenience (and political expedience) with someone as morally decent as Santorum.

I like what Newt says on reducing government - the problem is, I just don’t believe he’s committed to it - he’s never been committed to anything in his life!

How well-meaning conservatives can fall for this guy, this Clintonian figure, is beyond me. But politics is politics.

You simply don’t have a clue about Newt’s long record. Articles described him as the hard line conservative rebel in the House coming up in the ‘80s. He was the OPPOSITE of establishment and a careerist. There was no reason for him to engage in the battle with Bush, Sr. over Bush, Sr.’s raising taxes if all he cared about was his career. He risked everything to stand on principle there and is still paying for it to this day from the establishment. The ONLY specific you offered is that Newt backed one measly House candidate you didn’t feel is conservative enough. But Newt, as the guy who built the Republican majority after 40 years being out of power, would never back an independent candidate over a Republican. He doesn’t believe third party efforts like that help our movement in the long run.

Please point to the times in Newt’s 20-year career in the House when he showed he wasn’t committed to conservatism. He forced a Democrat president to run an even more fiscally conservative administration than arguably even Reagan or G. W. Bush did. He put up the Contract with America in 1994 and EVERY ITEM was voted on as promised.

You seem to have had a mythical rewriting of history drummed into your head by Newt’s opponents. I’ve looked into so many of these vague assertions and rumors that come up about Newt from time to time, and almost all are trumped up nonsense, spin and half-truths. The only thing you can point to is that throughout his career, he’s had some sympathy with the academic viewpoint on environmentalism even going back to his college professor days, but his voting record throughout his career reflects that, has never been radical or extreme, and he’s moved away from that, as has almost everybody now that the science on things like climate change has shifted. Not to mention, he’s been pushing for drilling and energy exploration since before Obama was even in office.

Please tell me where Newt falls short on social conservatism. I believe he has a 98+% pro-life rating. He passed two partial-birth abortion bans even though Clinton opposed them at that time. He won the support of influential Iowa social conservatives because his plan to deal with activist judges was thought to be the ONLY way conservatives will ever make any headway on these issues going forward.

As for me, I don’t care what mistakes Newt made in his personal relationships. The country is in far too many crises right now to reject the best man for fixing things because of something in his personal life that has no effect on my life whatsoever. And I’m not under the illusion that anyone is perfect morally. If you took the worst things anyone has done in their life and made them public, no one could get elected in this country.

Why don’t you look at his career in government from 1980-2000? Newt was despised by the Republican elite for forcing them to take the conservative hard line on issues like taxes and the military and hated, attacked and slandered by the Democrats as much as Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Sarah Palin, Ken Starr, Rush Limbaugh, etc. You should know how to sniff out an ally by looking at who their enemies are.

What he earned from Freddie Mac as a consultant was a pittance. They got him cheap and I think they got a great value for their money getting advice from someone that knowledgeable on government policy and history. Like many badly run companies, they seem to have not followed the advice of their smartest employees. Freddie Mac was a private company then, not funded by the taxpayer. In 2008 before the bailout, Newt spoke out publically that they should not be bailed out.

“But all issues should be raised in common sense terms that most folks can grasp. For example: “If you want to believe that we are descended from monkeys, OK, but I don’t,” rather than, “There is no provable scientific basis for the evolutionary tree-diagram.”

This is a fine illustration of how to sound ignorant when talking to people about evolution, since the theory does not claim that people are descended from monkeys. On the other hand, if you are talking to people who are even more ignorant, it might work.

“What he earned from Freddie Mac as a consultant was a pittance. They got him cheap and I think they got a great value for their money getting advice from someone that knowledgeable on government policy and history”

L. O. L. !!!!!!

“Why don’t you look at his career in government from 1980-2000?”

Who’da thunk he’d be pimping out Nancy Pelosi’s agenda on global warming? But he did...... What else would he do?

I don’t know. That’s why I don’t support Newt. That’s why nobody should. There are no limits on his ability to compromise. Personally, or politically.

Your suggestion that it is "drivel" to expect a Senator to honor his sacred oath of office, certainly types your perspective.

I never said any such thing, in fact I would be the first to demand that Senators and any other government officials uphold their oath. The sad fact is they don't and your yapping about the Tenth, changes nothing.

When the Senate was called upon to set in judgement for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, they were required to take a different oath, which they immediately ran before TV cameras and abrogated. We will continue to have dishonorable representatives as long as "We the People" send them there.

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.