Santorum Leads Romney In Pennsylvania GOP Primary (41-35%)

Quinnipiac University ^ | 04-03-12 | Quinnipiac University

[Lazlo in PA]

Favorite Son Rick Santorum leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 41 - 35 percent among likely voters in Pennsylvania's Republican presidential primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul has 10 percent, with 7 percent for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

With three weeks before the primary, 6 percent of likely voters remain undecided and 37 percent of those who name a candidate say they still could change their mind, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. This is the first look at likely voters and cannot be compared with earlier surveys of registered voters.

---------------------------

It's better for the Republican Party if Santorum stays in the race, 57 percent of likely primary voters say, while 33 percent say it's better for the party if Santorum drops out.

[Lazlo in PA]

Geez. That's depressing. I'm not giving up till I'm dead and gone. No matter what, I am going to stay positive and fight like hell to get the Marxists out of their elected offices.

"Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper." - Reagan

[caww]

You know why earmarks are good? Because actual ELECTED officials distribute the money

Are you nuts? The only thing they do with earmarks is barter and bribe.....then when it gets passed on it goes to the others who do likewise.

[Lazlo in PA]

Can you point to a time in the countries history when this was not the way tax dollars were distributed? You can’t because this is how it is set up in the Constitution. If you have an issue with corruption involving where the money goes, that is different matter entirely. The who and how is quite clearly defined.

[Lazlo in PA]

BTW, this is how much we will save by eliminating these evil “earmarks”.

“Eliminating 100 Percent of Earmarks Cuts Federal Spending Less Than 0.5 Percent”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/eliminating-100-percent-earmarks-cuts-federal-spending-less-05-percent

If you haven’t got the memo yet, entitlement spending is what is sinking the country.

[HamiltonJay]

Well, he may win the Primary in PA, but they just did a poll last month showing him losing a rematch against Casey by 8-10 points. The guys a dog. I understand why social conservatives love him, but when you look at him as a whole he’s just a dog of a candidate.

He’s VP material at best. He can go be the barking attack dog quite well, but the main guy? Its just not there folks.

Its a pathetic choice this election on the Republican side, the only one worth a damn is Newt, and the folks that will vote for Santorum come hell or high water, wont vote for Newt because of his divorces... so the GOP membership really have nothing to blame for this but themselves when we wind up with Romney as the nominee.

[HamiltonJay]

I live in PA and have Voted for Santorum on several occassions, however I always did so with an honest view of the man, not this painted nonsense he’s selling and some folks are buying.

Is he liberal? No, but he is not and never was a limited government guy... NEVER. He spent like water to buy votes when in office, said one thing and did another, etc etc etc.

Obviously he’s more conservative than Obama, or Mitt, but he’s not a huge ideological conservative. He’s also not a very astute or articulate politician. His social conservative views, combined with his abject inability to master the english language in defending them create gaffe after gaffe that frankly make it very easy to paint him as a hateful monster. Something the Left did very successfully in 2006, and the guy hasn’t changed since then. He’d go down just as badly in a national election as he did in 06, yes, even against a disaster like Obama.

I hate Mitt, the very idea that this guy is going to be the nominee makes me want to vomit. However, Mitt Vs O, I will vote Mitt. Lesser of 2 evils,and frankly that’s what the swing voters are going to do as well. This election is the republicans to lose. If the base abandons Mitt, you get Obama. And while I do not look forward to a Mitt administration, just like I didn’t look forward to Bush’s 2nd term, or Bush Srs 1st term, I know it beats the alternative.

If the Base abandons Mitt, O gets 4 more years, if they hold their noses and vote, O gets booted... its going to be a very very weird election cycle IMHO. Mitt will likely be fighting all out base rebellion all the way to election day which may well cost him the election.

What a gigantic fustercluck the GOP has made for themselves.

[skeeter]

What a gigantic fustercluck the GOP has made for themselves.

The Roves, Bushes, Gillespies and Rollins certainly have made a hash of things. The party needs to be pried from their sweaty fingers before its too late, if it isn't already.

[caww]

Santorum wasn't smart enough to realize the boost he got in New England was more from the media than his popularity, and they are who is driving this election on behalf of Obama.

The whole idea was to get Newt out of the picture, they knew Romney wasn't well received as he wasn't “taking” the New England states in mass as they had expected..., and that wasn't going to change...so Santorum would do just as well for Obama to go up against. Thus the media positioned him to the forefront...and successfully bumped out Newt as time would show.

I listened to a C-span gathering of media and journalists about this. It was an eye opener .....even to the point the media will ‘call it’ for a state as early as possible in order to prevent other voters from going out to vote...if the race is too close for their guy.

Republican voters jumped on board with Santorum as the alternative for Romney, and as usual the “religious” folks could care less what his record is...they “liked” hearing his social comments and went from there...and are still focused on his “religious” stances they want to hear....
Reminds me of the “itchy ear” the Bible speaks of.

Newt's as much a Christian as Santorum is....but religious folk expect perfection and see that in Santorum only because the media has yet to really unload on him...and they won't until it's time to push Romney again.

Santorum fell for the bait from the get go....and as is his history will do and say whatever to advance his political career.

However, if he sees he's not going to do well in Pa as he wants to... I won't be surprised if he drops out in order not to have a second loss go against his career, which is most important to him...always was and will be.

[caww]

Santorum wasn't smart enough to realize the boost he got in New England was more from the media than his popularity, and they are who is driving this election on behalf of Obama.

The whole idea was to get Newt out of the picture, they knew Romney wasn't well received as he wasn't “taking” the New England states in mass as they had expected..., and that wasn't going to change...so Santorum would do just as well for Obama to go up against. Thus the media positioned him to the forefront...and successfully bumped out Newt as time would show.

I listened to a C-span gathering of media and journalists about this. It was an eye opener .....even to the point the media will ‘call it’ for a state as early as possible in order to prevent other voters from going out to vote...if the race is too close for their guy.

Republican voters jumped on board with Santorum as the alternative for Romney, and as usual the “religious” folks could care less what his record is...they “liked” hearing his social comments and went from there...and are still focused on his “religious” stances they want to hear....
Reminds me of the “itchy ear” the Bible speaks of.

Newt's as much a Christian as Santorum is....but religious folk expect perfection and see that in Santorum only because the media has yet to really unload on him...and they won't until it's time to push Romney again.

Santorum fell for the bait from the get go....and as is his history will do and say whatever to advance his political career.

However, if he sees he's not going to do well in Pa as he wants to... I won't be surprised if he drops out in order not to have a second loss go against his career, which is most important to him...always was and will be.

[caww]

“The House of Representatives has a rule that bans trading votes for earmarks but the Senate does not,” said Senator DeMint. .....

And just so something gets thru to you.....“The Senate passed a vote-trading ban in 2007 by a unanimous vote of 98 to 0, ...but it was dropped behind closed doors..... If that rule were in place today, the earmarks and kick-backs ‘used to buy votes for the health care bill’ would not have been possible.”

[caww]

“The House of Representatives has a rule that bans trading votes for earmarks but the Senate does not,” said Senator DeMint. .....

And just so something gets thru to you.....“The Senate passed a vote-trading ban in 2007 by a unanimous vote of 98 to 0, ...but it was dropped behind closed doors..... If that rule were in place today, the earmarks and kick-backs ‘used to buy votes for the health care bill’ would not have been possible.”

[darrellmaurina]

Any fair-minded person has to admit that earmarks have been used by both sides of the aisle, abused by both sides of the aisle, and attacked by both sides of the aisle.

In my state, for example, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has a record of fighting earmarks on the federal level and that opposition dates back to similar fights she had at the state level when she held office in Missouri state government. On the other hand, former U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton, the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, used earmarks regularly for Fort Leonard Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base and the Missouri National Guard.

Both are Democrats. That should point out that this isn't a clearcut issue of Democrats versus Republicans; as Santorum’s votes indicate, quite a few Republicans supported earmarks too before they became politically unpopular.

It all boils down to two things:

1. Whether you prefer to have spending decisions made by explicitly political votes of elected officials or have them made by supposedly nonpolitical decisions of unelected staff members of federal agencies, and

2. Regardless of whether earmarking is okay in principle, whether the actual practice of earmark abuse had gotten so bad that moderate measures wouldn't suffice to fix the problem and earmarking had to be killed entirely with a blunt sledgehammer rather than a surgical scalpel.

The standard conservative Republican position today is sledgehammers are necessary. I don't object to that. Things are so bad today with the federal budget that drastic steps are necessary, and a ban on earmarks sends a strong signal that lawmaker's special projects won't be exempt from cuts by being protected through the earmark process.

However, we can't blame Santorum for earmarking when most other people on **BOTH** sides of the aisle considered that to be a significant part of their jobs as elected officials, and long-term, I'm not sure conservative Republicans have thought through the consequences of having unelected bureaucrats rather than elected officials making these decisions.

Bottom line: earmarking has gotten a bad reputation. We can't deny that reputation has been well-earned by bad behavior of elected officials.

Long-term, however, I'm worried that the cure will be worse than the disease.

[caww]

It's not about the money issued Lazlo....it's about how politicians use these to secure votes, bribe, and payoffs....it's a scam and a darn right nasty one at that, not for the good of the people but for the cards in hand the politicians choose to play.....they are bought and sold like stock in the stock exchange and just as corrupt those who abuse them.

"bridge to nowhere" comes to mind.....so don't be telling me how wonderful earmarks are....the people are the last to benefit if at all.

[HamiltonJay]

Yes, I know, Santorum’s played perfectly the spoiler to end Newt, because Newt would have crushed Obama. Now we are stuck with Romney, and I do believe Romney will win in November, but I don’t remotely like the fact he’s the candidate.

The fact Santorum can’t even get 50% in his home state shows exactly what I’ve been trying to tell folks about this guy since day one. I don’t hate him, but he’s not electable, never was. I could definitely see him in a VP slot, and his political ability (mediocre) in that level would not be a huge hinderence, he can play the attack dog very well. However at the top of the ticket, this guy doesn’t have it. Had folks not been so foolish, we could have seen a Newt/Santorum ticket that would have ensured romney gone, but now we are guaranteed Romney... so its a lose lose for America.

Romney is better than Obama, but not as good as we deserve.

[Lazlo in PA]

"bridge to nowhere" comes to mind.....so don't be telling me how wonderful earmarks are....the people are the last to benefit if at all.

Baloney. You keep confusing the fact that the congress has the power to distribute tax cash as they see fit and corruption of politicians. Prior to earmarks, appropriation committee heads just doled out the cash behind closed doors to wherever they saw fit without any accountability. Why don't you enlighten me on how you would like to spend this money after we eliminate Article 1 Seaction 8/9 of the Constitution?

BTW, some didn't think the spending for the Bridge to Nowhere was such a bad idea. Actually, a candidate for GOV in AK ran on this Stevens earmark being a great idea. Was she corrupt for that or lobbying for something illegal?

[caww]

Baloney? A Not......and throwing Palin out there means little to me...we are not discussing her and she’s not running...or haven’t you heard?

The corruption issue remains the topic over and above any other aspect of earmarks, be it they are handled behind closed doors or in the open. It’s a corrupt scam in itself and needs to go...and that’s the bottom line.

[caww]

Had folks not been so foolish, we could have seen a Newt/Santorum ticket that would have ensured romney gone, but now we are guaranteed Romney... so its a lose lose for America. Romney is better than Obama, but not as good as we deserve.

I have no reason to think Romney better than Obama, in fact his deceptiveness will make it harder to gage what he's up to if he wins...but like yourself I do not see how Romney can win this, even if the Mormon machine comes on strong, which they surely will do.

There's been little mud thrown Romney's way since the start.....they're withholding their fire til they can make direct hits he will not be ready for, nor will he survive them. ....He's not quick on his feet and actually comes across rather dumb-faced far too often and easily blindsided without much effort. So when the real ammo begins to fly he'll have difficulty , at best, ducking it, which has been his forte up to this point.

[caww]

Just noted your psot written yesturday.....sorry about that. I do think most of us want Romney out of the pricture and though I have many reasons not to vote for Santorum if he survives this I will....much like I voted for McCain the last time around.

But for now it looks to be Romney and I have no reason to vote for him and won't...Obama will win just the same as Romney can never stand against what's coming from the Chicago crowd.

We lost our chance with Newt...unless we see convention.. and even that's looking pretty slim now.

[HamiltonJay]

Romney can win for one simple reason, all Obama has is mudslinging against him, that’s it, Obama cannot run on his record and win. Santorum can easily be painted as extreme, he gives soundbites daily almost that make him look a monster, this can’t be done with Romney.

This election is boiling down to a simple referendum on Obama, nothing more. Every poll shows the electorate wants Obozo gone. All they need to know is the guy they are offered to replace him with isn’t a monster. That’s it.

Romney, as bad as he is from my perspective and most conservatives perspectives, is an acceptable replacement to the swing voter. He can’t easily be painted as a radical right wing hatemonger. The press will attack and so will Obama, and Romney takes Obamacare basically out of play because he passed something nearly identical in MA... but at the end of the day, when its a referendum vote which is what this election is going to be, its simply a matter of when the 40% of swing voters look at Obama, and look at the alternative, do they find the alternative scarier than Obama, that’s it.

This race has always been the republicans to lose.

What is going to be, and already is interesting, is that Obama and his surrogates are going to be the ones stirring up the Romney isn’t conservative enough line, I GUARANTEE IT! Obama will not win the swing vote, so their only, and probably most effective attack will be to attempt to depress the Republican conservative vote. Its going to be a crazy election.

Romney winning or losing boils down to whether the Republican base will hold for him, nothing more. Obama and his surrogates will unload with every ounce of mud they can dig up and thug tactic they can come up with, and its not going to matter. The general election is a matter of simply this, will the base hold their nose and vote for Romney? Is Obama so bad that even though Romney is without quesiton the most liberal Republican ever to run for the white house, will the conservative base show up and pull the trigger for him because OBama is so much worse.

That’s the real question. I admit I hate Romey, and find the fact I am going to likely vote for him repugnant to my core, but when my options are continued unfettered hemmoraging that is Obama to a festering wound that is Romney, I have to take the festering wound. Yes, it sucks, but a festering wound won’t kill me directly. Lesser of two evils, nothimg more.

Mark my words, by the time the election cycle is over, you will be able to track money directly back to Obama funding groups attacking Romney for being too liberal.

Obama won largely on Conservative Base disgust in ‘08, had turnout in 08 been the same as it had been in 04, Obama would not have won, even with his big turnout of blacks in urban areas. Too many conservatives stayed home in 08, hopefully as bad as the choice is now, they won’t repeat the same mistakes.

I don’t know how we clean up the fustercluck that is the GOP, but it clearly isn’t going to happen before November.

[Lazlo in PA]

You still won’t tell me how you would devise a scheme on how the congress should distribute tax dollars since the Constitution offends your concept of “honest govt’”? I also see now that you are onto corruption. Earlier I posted to you about the House Banking Scandal being real corruption. Do you agree with that? Do you think members involved in it should be eligible to be President since you feel that earmarking is such a crime as to discredit Santorum?