New poll shows Rick Santorum leading in Alabama GOP primary

al.com ^ | 03/07/12 | George Talbot

[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

[Joe 6-pack]

"Exactly backwards. It is big government that subsidizes and enables people to evade responsibility for their destructive behavior."

Who gave the "big government" the power and authority to do so in the first place? Irresponsible, apathetic voters who lost sight of the cost and moral value of their freedoms. Liberties are only surrendered when people value something more. By undermining the value of the most fundamental liberty, it's easy to get people to surrender all the others that spring from it.

"Frankly your statement is what scares many people. You seem to have made peace with big government."

Guess you missed the part where I wrote, "...meat axe tax cuts, deregulation of private industry, deconstructing useless redundant bureaucracies and a dynamic energy policy, while critical first steps..."

How is that making peace with big government? Did you 1. not read where I wrote that, 2. not understand what I wrote, or 3. willfully ignore it?

To you it’s all about who is in charge of it. Would you use it to force morality from the top down?

Force? Of course not. Again, I direct you to my post where I very specifically wrote, "While that can not, and should not, be legislated, it will never occur without an emphasis on personal morality and responsibility at the top."

Again...did you gloss over that? Are you too obtuse to understand that? Did you willfully ignore that, and if so why?

[RetiredArmy]

We vote Tuesday here in Alabama. I ain’t voting for Romney. Said it a 100 times before and will keep repeating it over and over.

[chuckee]

“If Newt can’t win in Alabama, then he has no “southern strategy.”

Neither will he have a Las Vegas strategy as his financial angel will take flight and Newt will have empty pockets.

[Lazlo in PA]

Well you were the one trying to claim that Rick had no thoughts on these issues. You were proved ignorant on it or maybe you are just flat out spinning falsehoods to prop up your guy.

[trappedincanuckistan]

I did misread. I just got up. My apologies.

[napscoordinator]

I am not against negativity. Heck there has been negativity on FR for Santorum forever. The fact that Newt was given negativity in mid-January is not an excuse to why he is not getting votes in March. Sure he was hurt in Florida because of it, but Newt should have got up dusted himself off and continued on. Instead he got angry and upset and just sort of wandered around doing nothing until he spent the entire month of February in Georgia. I don’t know what to say except that Santorum has bashed the most on FR. Very little negativity on FR for Newt.

[Norseman]

>>If it weren’t 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.<<

But are you bitter enough to throw the race to Romney; that’s the big question. Actually, that’s the question for Gingrich, I suppose.

The problem for Conservatives is that we’re fighting three battles simultaneously: Gingrich vs. Santorum, Gingrich/Santorum vs. Romney, and GOP vs. Obama. The GOP establishment wants to get right to the last battle, GOP vs. Obama, and they see Romney as the fastest way to get there, so we also end up fighting a 4th battle, Conservatives vs. GOP establishment.

The differences between Gingrich and Santorum pale when compared to the differences between either of them and FLIP-FLOP (How long has it been since you’ve heard that term? We’re too busy fighting the Gingrich/Santorum battle right now, but once that’s settled, all you’ll hear from our side is “Flip-Flop this” and “Flip-Flop that,” and that is when Romney will be trampled, assuming we can settle the Gingrich/Santorum battle before Romney wraps it all up.

The poll we’re discussing is interesting because it was the fifth in a series, and it showed a steady decline in Gingrich’s fortunes BEFORE Super Tuesday. That turned out to be quite accurate, as no one could reasonably argue that Gingrich outperformed, and in fact could easily argue that he underperformed, expectations going in.

Now, with Super Tuesday results in, it would be reasonable to assume that Gingrich’s slide will continue as the he gradually loses the Gingrich/Santorum battle. But with the way the last minute ad blitzes and media-manufactured “gaffes” have influenced so many contests thus far, you can’t rule anything out.

But at some point, we’ve got to boil this down to just one Conservative vs. Romney, before he walks away with the nomination. Agreed?

[C. Edmund Wright]

Agreed? Not totally, no.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I have already accepted the fact that we will have Romney crammed down our craws. Santorum can't win, with or without Newt in the race.

A recent Rasmussen poll shows that only 17% of the voters think that Santorum can beat Obama, while 58% think Romney can. This is not among Republicans either, this is among all Americans, independents included.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Well, set FR aside, I am talking about nationally.

And I totally disagree that negativity in January doesn’t impact March. No, Newt did not respond properly either, on that we’ll agree. But campaigns are continuums and not vacuums - and yes, we are still impacted by what happened in the fall, December, and January. And Newt was not “given negativity” in January, he was the object of an unheard of gang up job including Rick. I will not slough it off so cavalierly. To do so would be to be inaccurate.

[Norseman]

>>Agreed? Not totally, no.<<

I meant, do you agree that we’ve got to settle this before Romney walks away with the nomination? The presumption is that he will, if we don’t, of course.

So are you saying that not settling it will not lead to Romney winning? That we’ll end up with a brokered convention? Where’s your disagreement?

Because I doubt that you’re so bitter that you’d rather see Romney win than Santorum, especially since it’s Romney and his PACs that have unloaded on all the Conservative candidates, but I could be wrong.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: New poll shows Rick Santorum leading in Alabama GOP primary

____________________________________________

The polls said the same thing in Michigan and Ohio over a week before the actually primaries in both states. Santorum was LEADING in both Ohio and Michigan.

Then the Romney million dollar machine notices this, and then start saturating the states with attack ads. RESULT: Romney squeaks out victories.

How do we know the same scenario won’t play out in Alabama?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

The problem we all face is that Romney already, virtually has won the nomination. Between Santorum’s poor planning and organization, he failed to qualify for at least 4 of the remaining states delegates by not getting on the ballot in time.

Believe it or not, if he expects to be elected President, that position alone has zero tolerance for any disorganization or poor planning of any kind. The fact that he is this poor a candidate in this area, proves he has no business being anywhere near the Oval Office.

Santorum’s gross inexperience, as well as serious lack of business and Executive back ground, also contribute to his many negatives. NO MORE TRAINEES IN THE WHITE HOUSE! PERIOD!

[Joe 6-pack]

"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."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Yes, it's a tired, old threadbare argument, but one that at least a few of us still attempt to abide by. Those self-righteous founders who thought it was government's duty to secure the right to life...anachronisms to the likes of you, as apparently you know better than they...but I'm the one who's self righteous.

I have no respect for one who would pick and choose, and re-order the articulated principles that founded this nation.

[C. Edmund Wright]

In order....of your points:

No.
No.
Not necessarily.
Maybe.
All of the above to some degree.

And maybe, but I don’t accept your premise totally.

[Norseman]

You’re right, if we’re going to nominate by polling instead of by going to the polls, we might as well have skipped all this silly voting and just entered Romney’s name as the nominee long ago. Sort of like they do in Russia today, I guess. And, like them, maybe toss the other candidates in jail during the process to make sure they’re not around to contest the chosen one.

My questions for you though, are these: Would you rather have Romney than Santorum as the nominee? And, if so, do you really think Romney will dump Obamacare if he’s elected?

I’m convinced, by his continued support for Romneycare, he’ll keep Obamacare in some form, and I thought that before recent revelations that he would probably do exactly that.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Here is the real truth, as of today. 3/7

Townhall PollTracker Alabama Republican Primary (National)
Good attempt to twist the facts (again) But we are way ahead of you! (Week old data won’t help you anymore)

Latest PollsState PollsNational Polls
Alabama Republican Primary (National)
National Average as of 3-1 to 3-6

Mitt
Romney31%

Rick
Santorum22%

Newt
Gingrich21%

Ron
Paul 7%

[C. Edmund Wright]

Sheer ignorance. You don’t even know where we agree and disagree. Clueless, but without doubt you are.

[Elvina]

Good news! Rick’s on a roll. Great speech today in Alabama.

[VanDeKoik]

“Well you were the one trying to claim that Rick had no thoughts on these issues. You were proved ignorant on it or maybe you are just flat out spinning falsehoods to prop up your guy.”

I asked what it was.

What I got was basically stuff that Sean Hannity talked about back in 2005.