Like IA, Mid/Downstate IL is seeing population decreases. Theoretically, there's about 50 counties Santorum can take. He probably has to win each of those by 500-1000 votes to offset northern IL (have him down 30,000 votes in Cook, 12,000 in lake), etc, but even then, there's probably not enough conservatives in the state. He's probably topped at 37-38% and Romney will be junst under 45%, with Newt around 7 or 8, and Paul the rest.
1 posted on
03/16/2012 7:58:00 AM PDT by
parksstp
To: parksstp
Looks like Ohio. Big surprise. Not sure what Gingrich is doing, but it's still obvious he can't go north while Santorum can go south. One thing in Santorum's favor is most of Romney's supporters aren't that enthusiastic to begin with and now they've been told for weeks that Romney is inevitable, so they may not show. Romney should be careful trying to bluff people out of the race by contending he's inevitable, because voters won't show for him if they are convinced of that.
2 posted on
03/16/2012 8:08:07 AM PDT by
throwback
( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
To: parksstp
The Newtbots, nonetheless, will stick with Newt because Rick Santorum has minor imperfections as a conservative and Newt has none.
3 posted on
03/16/2012 8:08:07 AM PDT by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
To: parksstp
I hate to say it, but it’s time for Newt and Paul to drop out.
To: Steelfish; Lazlo in PA; writer33; cripplecreek; antonius; Brices Crossroads
5 posted on
03/16/2012 8:09:43 AM PDT by
parksstp
(I pick RIck! (If he's good enough for Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, he's good enough for me))
To: parksstp
Whatever. If Romney can’t crack 50% in a state like Illinois when he is calling himself the inevitable candidate, he has SERIOUS problems.
6 posted on
03/16/2012 8:14:24 AM PDT by
Thunder90
(Romney barely won in OH with a 12-1 money advantage, he can't beat Obama that way.)
To: parksstp
Since Rick has out performed the polls time and again, try a magic eight ball for predictions.
To: parksstp
Politics as usual fools the American electorate one more time.
To: parksstp
This looks like the state where the split conservative vote can do some of the most damage.
This state is direct delegate election by district. That means just like with Clinton/Bush/Perot, whichever candidates’ delegates get the most votes in that district win. They don’t need 50% or a majority, just the highest amount of votes. Romney will walk away with all 69 delegates if this poll holds across all counties. Yet if Newt’s votes went to Rick, Rick would walk away with all 69 delegates.
Losing this state’s delegates is a loss we probably can’t afford to take if we want to stop Romney from winning the nomination. There will probably be no contested convention if he gets more than half of the Illinois delegates. Every single delegate counts and given all the upcoming states Romney is guaranteed to do strong in, we need to win these “swing” states decisively to beat him.
9 posted on
03/16/2012 8:22:21 AM PDT by
JediJones
(The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
To: parksstp; Lazlo in PA; Antoninus
11 posted on
03/16/2012 8:27:02 AM PDT by
Carry_Okie
(The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
To: parksstp
Illinois is being bombarded with massive pro-Romney robocalls, media ads, and glowing commentary on even the “conservative” talk radio station. The only thing mentioning Santorum or Gingrich is highly negative. I have not heard a single positive ANYTHING from or about Santorum. NOTHING.
To: parksstp
He probably has to win each of those by 500-1000 votes to offset northern IL (have him down 30,000 votes in Cook, 12,000 in lake),
I live in Ogle County, northern IL around, and even in, Rockford is going Santorum.
Not all of northern IL is greater Chicago.
14 posted on
03/16/2012 9:10:51 AM PDT by
Dr. Sivana
(May Mitt Romney be the Paul Tsongas of 2012.)
To: parksstp
It seems that Newton is again playing the role of Perot. Is Perot one of his contributors, or is Perot with Obama?
17 posted on
03/16/2012 9:25:29 AM PDT by
Theodore R.
(Mathematically, it's all over, says Mittens. I'm pretty sure the people will again let us down.)
To: parksstp
Gee, I did not know there were 14 Republicans in Chicago!
21 posted on
03/16/2012 9:37:56 AM PDT by
MIchaelTArchangel
(Romney ruined Massachusetts. Now he wants to ruin the nation.)
To: parksstp
Willard should not have been in a Republican race to begin with. If anyone has screwed up things it is Barack McBomney. Certainly not Gingrich.
25 posted on
03/16/2012 11:05:09 AM PDT by
Leep
(Dueling tag lines=don't worry,you'll be a vegetable guy soon<>It's gonna be a Newt day!)
To: parksstp
Read no further 37-31-14 is the recipe for conservative disaster.
37 posted on
03/16/2012 2:05:09 PM PDT by
Theodore R.
(Mathematically, it's all over, says Mittens. I'm pretty sure the people will again let us down.)
To: parksstp
These news outlets are killing us with polls out before the candidates even have a chance to campaign there. What are these people basing their ‘votes’ on? I have to think it’s all the chatter because I’m quite sure only a handful have looked at their positions. I kind of miss the debates.
54 posted on
03/17/2012 5:53:47 PM PDT by
Kenny
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson