Posted on 03/08/2012 7:54:01 AM PST by pgkdan
A new poll released on the eve of Rick Santorum’s first campaign visit to Alabama shows the former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania leading in the state Republican Party presidential primary.
The statewide poll conducted by Alabama State University’s Center for Leadership and Public Policy showed 22.7 percent of likely Republican voters supported Santorum, who is scheduled to make campaign appearances Thursday in Huntsville and Mobile.
Former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney trailed Santorum with 18.7 percent, followed by Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House from neighboring Georgia, with 13.8 percent.
The telephone poll of 470 likely GOP voters showed 29.8 remained undecided and 15 percent saying they intended to support other candidates. The poll did not ask voters whether they supported Ron Paul, the Texas congressman seeking the GOP nomination.
The poll was conducted March 1, prior to the Super Tuesday vote that helped establish Romney and Santorum as leaders in the race for the nomination, with Romney holding a total of 415 delegates and Santorum with 176.
Gingrich, with 105 delegates, canceled campaign plans in Kansas this week to focus on voters in Alabama and Mississippi, which share a primary election day Tuesday.
But the poll results indicate that support for Gingrich is waning in Alabama, according to ASU political science professor Thomas Vocino.
“The numbers are just not in his favor, and the trend is working against him,” Vocino said. “I can’t foresee a situation where he can rebound and win in Alabama.”
Vocino said Gingrich’s support has fallen steeply since ASU began tracking the race five weeks ago. Gingrich led the field in Alabama with 26.9 percent in the initial round of polling on Feb. 2. His support slipped to 18.9 percent by Feb. 23, when results showed him with a slim lead over Santorum at 18.3 percent.
Santorum’s steady increase over the same time period came almost completely at Gingrich’s expense, Vocino said. Romney, by comparison, has held flat at around 16-18 percent, according to Vocino.
The results indicate that Gingrich is unlikely to reach the 20 percent threshold that would allow him to win delegates in any of the state’s seven congressional districts.
“I think it is very problematic for Gingrich to get any” delegates, Vocino said
sigh
yes there was, a week leading up to GA had a few threads stating Newt was behind in his home state and some actually thought that too like this poll was real and got all giddy.
Lets face it, who knows who is winning but this poll is just B/S and why it was put up on here is staggering.
You mean, cut the “FACTS” crap, don’t you n00b?
When in doubt, call names.
That's simply ridiculous. Santorum authored the Senate welfare that Bill Clinton was finally forced to sign into law!
Spoken like someone who has no idea what he is talking about. Rick has been sending out Foreign Policy emails since he left office. He is the only on in this race that has had a consistent message on the dangers of Iran and how to deal with them in a strong fashion. He is a solid defender of Israel and even has been warning about the trouble there is with China and Russia partnering up.
I guess you missed that while you were reading Newts work warning us of the huge threat of Man Made Global Warming and having the federal govt' controlling our health records over the same time period.
“Cut the ad hominems and focus on issues.”
You’re a fine one to talk...
However, if his vote wasn't needed, why not vote his principles, or
if you vote was needed why not vote against and send the bill back to committee and rally like minded people around his position.
Santorum's bottom line is that his "principles" are and always have been negotiable.
That said, if Santo happens to be the nominee I will vote for him. But I will do so with a more complete understanding of what we would be getting than some of his most ardent supporters.
lol
exactly.
What I hate about these threads is that it will be freeper v freeper.
Personally I’m fed up of all of this crap now and wish Col Allen West and Sarah would come in.
I can’t see any of these 3 beating obama now after the destruction by Romney and FOX on Newt.
Santorum and the media putting him down and saying he is a religious freak and that last debate take one for the team certainly made him look like the old establishment boy .
As for Romney the man cannot even get a majority in the south which is the base and the GOP were stupid for thinking that they could push a MA Gov on us who passed Govt health care and who is way out of touch with us normal folk down here and the midwest
Hell did no one up in DC get a memo that it helps when you have someone running from a big swing state and hwo can actually win?
Yeah,, changing the rules to win isn’t fair. Why,,, that’d be like using chicanery to keep Newt off the ballot in Virgina.
OK, we're gonna have to fight again, because that is breathtaking in light of some facts about this primary season.
Fact A: Newt was the last person to go negative in this campaign.
Fact B: Rick piled on Newt in Iowa and NH and Florida, and did not attack Romney
Fact C: Before all that piling on, Newt was way ahead of everybody precisely because it was a campaign of who to vote for, not against.
Fact D: RS was the unintended beneficiary of Mitt's scorched earth against Newt.
Fact E: Yes, this pisses off Newt supporters, especially now when RS is doing well, suddenly his supporters are against negativity. If it werent for unprecedented negativity and Mitt's deep pockets, Newt would likley have won Iowa SC and Florida and wrapped it up. Bitter? Damn right we are .
[How to get newt supporters to understand this?]
I will take a page right out of your mantra; “It’s all about remaining true to your Principles.”
“Fixing the economy” with meat axe tax cuts, deregulation of private industry, deconstructing useless redundant bureaucracies and a dynamic energy policy, while critical first steps, will ultimately amount to little more than a band-aid on a bullet hole without a restoration of more traditional morality.”
Exactly backwards. It is big government that subsidizes and enables people to evade responsibility for their destructive behavior. Limiting government would in essence compel people to take responsibility for themselves, and lead to a more moral people.
Frankly your statement is what scares many people. You seem to have made peace with big government. To you it’s all about who is in charge of it. Would you use it to force morality from the top down?
You're wearing your argument inside out. The reason the government feels free to strip the money, time and property, etc. from people in the first place, is because the populace as a whole has lost sight of the dignity, sanctity and value of their lives and labor. Persons have allowed the welfare state to undermine their sense of dignity and self-worth to the point they are comfortable letting others pull their weight, and empowering government to let them.
"Without property rights, you can't do a damned thing to protect the unborn."
By your logic, persons without property rights have never accomplished anything. Certainly I'm not advocating the abolition of property rights, and indeed, virtually any imaginable endeavor is more difficult without them, but the reason property rights are eroding in the first place is that persons no longer make the inherent, philosophical connection between their property as the fruit of their labor, which is only possible by virtue of the fact that they have a right to life.
" Yet you simply hide behind your self righteousness and your platitudes and refuse to see the totally unworkablitiy of how you want to fight this fight."
Oh...I'm not hiding, but if a firm belief that the right to life is the very cornerstone of all our God-given rights, makes me "self-righteous," then yes, I'm the most self-righteous son of a bitch you're likely to meet in your (God-given) life.
personally I think we’re being played like a fiddle.
I detected a sinister tone in obama’s comment before the voting on superTuesday ...”Romney oh yeah good luck in your primary tonight ... huummm ... smile ... wink ... nob”
I don’t trust them ... they know dems want switch and vote for ricky in the general ... but, but, but dems will vote for Romney. I got my own sampling, most of my demo friends will vote for Romney.
The Facts:
Santorum is one of many 1990s politicians who pushed for welfare reform, and not all of them were Republicans. In fact, President Bill Clinton vowed during his first run for office to “end welfare as we know it,” among other promises, such as resurrecting the economy.
The reform effort sputtered for years after Clinton entered the White House, as lawmakers argued over various proposals and the president vetoed the first two welfare bills that hit his desk. Clinton eventually signed a reform measure about three months before a lopsided 1996 election gave him a second term
I have no respect for those who substitute self righteousness for wisdom. I much prefer wisdom in the pursuit of true righteousness.
You are the only one wearing out a tired argument. Bye.
“Spoken like someone who has no idea what he is talking about. Rick has been sending out Foreign Policy emails since he left office. He is the only on in this race that has had a consistent message on the dangers of Iran and how to deal with them in a strong fashion. He is a solid defender of Israel and even has been warning about the trouble there is with China and Russia partnering up.”
You are seriously telling us with a straight face that ONLY Santorum has said any of this? Anyone that picked up a rag like the Economist could have told you the same thing!
Senator Master of the Obvious saves us all!
And if he has no southern strategy, Newt`s campaign is done...or should be. But his ego won`t let him quit.
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.