UT/TT Poll: Santorum Crushing GOP Hopefuls in Texas (Santorum 45%, Romney 16%)

The Texas Tribune ^ | 2/20/12 | Ross Ramsey

[TexasFreeper2009]

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has a commanding lead among Republican presidential candidates in Texas, according to a new University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll.

Santorum would get the votes of 45 percent of the respondents if the election were held today, according to the survey. The other three candidates in the GOP race — former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas — are clustered well behind. Gingrich got 18 percent, Romney received 16 percent and Paul garnered 14 percent.

[dforest]

I am aware of that. But he did support mandates. Obama will point that out to him, be assured of that. It will give Obama the upperhand.

I intend to vote for our nominee be it Santorum, Newt, uh Romney I would have to seriously think about, but at least he isn’t Obama.

[FerociousRabbit]

His goal is to get 15% of the vote in Michigan. He should have been living in Arizona, campaigning there non-stop. Romney can’t spend all of his time in both Michigan (fighting Santorum) and in Arizona (fighting off Gingrich). Romney would have to spend all of his time defending his home turf against Santorum, like he is now, leaving Newt competitive in Arizona by the fact that he would be the only person campaigning there.

But what do I know?

[no dems]

! what? I haven’t seen those! I am a Mormon ads?
____________________________________________________________
Nor have I.

[darrellmaurina]

95 posted on Monday, February 20, 2012 9:19:49 AM by greyfox: “I’m afraid Rick will go down with the “God” issue, the “Gay” issue and the “abortion issue”. Better he should stay neutral on these issues rather than blunder on. A live and let live attitude might serve him well.”

Huh?

Even Southern rural Democrats are pleading with their party to shut up on the issues of God, gays, and guns, saying the Democratic Party loses elections all over the South by being on the wrong side.

Most Americans are not atheists. Most Americans are not (yet) pro-gay. Even in major urban areas, while most residents don't own guns, they don't want to take guns away from those who do.

Seems to me like Santorum is kicking the Democrats exactly where they need to be kicked by making these issues front and center.

[dforest]

Thanks, that needed to be said.

[DestroyLiberalism]

dforest wrote:
<<
I see any of the candidates on our side as changing a whole lot.

The negativism around here is ridiculous.

Obama sucks, people know it even though they may not be out there screaming it on the streets.

As Levin said, “an orange juice can is better than Obama”.
>>

************************************************************

THANK YOU! I don’t get all the idiotic negativity around here by FReepers who think Obama can’t be beaten in November. The truth is, his presidency has been a catastrophic FAILURE by any objective measure and his job approval numbers are WEAK going into an election year! There is absolutely NOTHING positive about his record that he can run on and I don’t care how many hundreds of millions of dollars he has in his “war chest”. Obama is as good as BURNT TOAST in November, though that COULD change if the hand-wringing Negative Nellies on our side don’t stop with all the damn self-defeatist talk!

[dt57]

Rick Santorum is leading for two reasons:

1. The public crusifixion of Newt Gingrich by Mitt Romney, the Media and establishment republicans. Much of which is inaccurate and some plain false. His own moral failings are public knowledge. (I am glad mine aren’t). But to think the others are innocent of moral failings is to discount much of the gospel. Newt is redeemed and forgiven by God, we would do well to do the same.

2. Ron Paul is unacceptable because of a naviee view of radical Islam and their purposes. Mitt Romney is the worse kind of politician, seeking office solely for the purpose of self interest...and does anything and everything to get elected.

Rick is what most people believe they have left. So they build him up in their own minds in order to get excited about his candidacy. He is an average Jr. Senator, that needs more seasoning, and in a sense a very average communicator. He will lose to Obama.

I AM NOT TRYING TO BE NEGATIVE JUST REALISTIC. THOSE WHO WISH TO MAKE RICK SANTORUM MORE THAN HE IS WILL NOT HELP HIM WIN. LOOKING AT HIM REALISTICALLY HELPS US IN MANY WAYS. VETTING IS THE NORMAL COURSE OF ALL GOOD POLITICAL ANYAYSIS.

[Arrowhead1952]

We’ve seen them during the evening news here.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

If someone beats Obama and they maintain the status quo and Americans don't see/experience positive changes, then the Dems will take over both houses and the WH in the next election and America will be done. Our economy cannot continue as it has. As far as negativism, yes it is alive and well. I am so sick of hearing people who are outraged because Newt sat on a couch with Pelosi. I am also sick of hearing the other things people are outraged about, yet they don't care about economic proposals, much less can evaluate the impact of the proposals or the likelihood of a candidate being able to implement them. Good grief!! “It's the economy stupid” is more applicable now than ever.

[MadelineZapeezda]

Many of my Italian American friends in western PA...yes, traditionally vote Rat....will vote for anyone but Obama...you can take that to the bank!

[ConservativeDude]

If he wins Michigan, he WILL end up as the nominee”

Let’s play that out...do you think that Santorum can win in November?

I think that is a “maybe”...he has a shot. Not a shoo in, but he has a shot. And I think he has a better shot than Romney or Gingrich.

I would not be opposed to having a contested convention and having some combination of McDonnell/Jindal/Walker come out of that.

Or Santorum with any of those guys at the bottom, that’d be ok, too.

I’d also be ok with Santorum/McDonnell/Jindal/Walker with Christie as VP. (I know them’s fighting words here). But we have to keep our eyes on teh prize here.

What is the most important pro life objective? To beat obama. And to beat him, ideally, with a strong pro lifer. Obviously Santorum is the strongest possible alternative to him in that regard.

But we have an economic agenda as well, and as has been routinely noted, Santorum needs some muscle here from Walker, and he needs to turn his back on George W. Bush.....while still hanging onto the blue collar votes that he has gotten in the past.

In any event...just some random thoughts.

Back to the question: do you think Santorum can win in November? I think he’s got a shot, but he has some real weaknesses.

[anglian]

Santorum’s Senate record shows lack of support for E-Verify. And he has failed in all debate opportunities to show a changed position. - NumbersUSA

I guess he's updated, this is from his site: "Enforcing immigration and labor laws including through employer verification including an E-Verify system that is simple, reliable, and protects businesses."

[dforest]

Everyone of our candidates have weaknesses.

Dirty little secret? Obama has far more than our candidates do and he proves that daily.

Once the primaries are over, maybe there will be some time spent pointing that out.

[altura]

Don’t quite understand your reasoning.

If Santorum continues to rise, he will get a majority of the delegates and there will be no brokered convention.

If he falters and the vote is more divided, it is a faint possibility.

I don’t think it would be that good for the country. If the promises, deals, and horse trading start, Mitt might hold the whip hand.

It would need to go through several votes before an outsider could be considered.

It would be fun television but it’s a ‘be careful what you wish for’ situation.

[straps]

I strongly suggest all real conservatives get a copy of a new book called REGANS COMEBACK it is a carbon copy of whats happening right now. Basically it states that Regan the new comer was getting wracked by the man from Michigan an during the Texas Primary he became the winner. Remember the establishment was in bed with Ford as the next guy due to run. We do know what happened next don’t we? Pray the same happens for Newt...............

[DestroyLiberalism]

dt57 wrote:
<<
Rick is what most people believe they have left. So they build him up in their own minds in order to get excited about his candidacy.
>>

**************************************************************

Hmmm... You seem to be describing the very phenomenon that got OBAMA elected in 2008. HE was a blank slate and tens of millions of voters got excited building up in their minds whatever image of him they wanted.

Bottom line... The election is still 8-1/2 months away and I believe I’m being very REALISTIC in predicting that Obama will be defeated.

[ConservativeDude]

Seems to me like Santorum is kicking the Democrats exactly where they need to be kicked by making these issues front and center.”

That is precisely Santorum’s strength. Remember, there are two kinds of indy voters. The fiscally “conservative” socially liberal. These are the indys who the media identify, and they of course voted obama.

But there are also the indys that the media ignores. These are the bitter clingers that have often voted Democratic...basically Reagan Democrats.

Santorum is doing great here, and will do great here. But he does need the other indys to win in November. If the campaign becomes, “Santorum wants your birth control” that is going to be hard to overcome. And that is where obama and Axelrod want the campaign to go.

Santorum’s strength is also his one weakness...perhaps, dare I say it, a blue blood fiscally conservative/socially ambivalent running mate might help. Reagan/Bush.

Santorum/Romney?

Oh my goodness. I said it. Many freepers will say under no circumstances. But many of them in other posts will also talk about how meaningless the VP slot is if held by a conservative. If it is meaningless for a conservative, then it is meaningless for a liberal. And again, the overriding objective (no...imperative) is to beat obama.

We shall see how this plays out...but I do agree with you that Santorum has a strength here that the media by its very nature is unable to recognize, seeing as the media is dominated by a bunch of fags and libertines who don’t own guns.

[altura]

Perry is beloved enough to be the longest ever governor in the state and a man who could win again.

The leftists hate him with a passion because he is too conservative.

I don’t know who you are and what positions you have in Texas but Rick Perry has been great for the state.

That said, I don’t think endorsements help that much no matter who give them.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

And while other candidates provide pages on their website that give positions on immigration, Sen. Santorum doesn’t address immigration on his website.

It's actually pretty prominent on his website. Here it is:

As the son of an Italian immigrant, Rick Santorum values the important role immigrants have played and continue to play in shaping our nation. One thing that makes America exceptional is that anyone from any part of the world can become an American by embracing our ideals and following our laws. Moving forward, America needs fair and robust immigration policy that will continue to protect Americans, reward lawful citizens, and help grow our economy. Rick Santorum believes that the key to a strong immigration policy begins with securing the American border. For America to grow and prosper, developing a strong immigration policy must become a priority. Unfortunately, President Obama has not only failed to reform America’s broken immigration system, he has also failed to secure the border against serious threats that imperil all Americans. His first visit to the border was two and a half years into his term; not exactly border first.

A multifaceted approach to border security will not only make America safer, but also save taxpayers more money during these difficult economic times. Securing the border first will put America in a better position to address the immigration system and illegal immigrants that currently live in America. While securing the border is not the only solution to immigration, it will serve as a starting point to fix the broken immigration system and clear the path for responsible reform.

The policies of the Obama administration have left us today with a serious problem: an exposed border and a nation vulnerable to drug cartels, violent criminals, and terrorists. Rick Santorum shares the views of Americans by and large that once the border is secure more immigration reforms can begin. This is not only a fairness issue but a national security issue as well. With countless threats facing America, securing the border is the first line of defense for America. President Obama needs to stop the political games on immigration and get to real solutions. That’s not what they’re doing in Washington on immigration. The U.S. Constitution explicitly gives this responsibility to the federal government. Instead of providing leadership, President Obama is an antagonist and a panderer, suing states struggling with the burden of illegal immigration rather than supporting them, and promising things he has not and will not deliver.

Rick Santorum believes that after we get serious about securing the border and earn the confidence of the American people, we need to streamline the legal immigration system, seek to attract the best educated and most entrepreneurial people from around the world, and create a workable guest worker program for farmers.

Policies:

•Secure the border first, and then tackle other aspects of immigration reforms to solve an urgent national security challenge and gain credibility with the American people first.
•Streamline the legal immigration system to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic delays and burdens.
•The key to a safer America lies in an approach to border security that includes the following enforcement measures:
     •Expand the border fence fully where needed and enhance physical border security;
     •More law enforcement resources and border agents;
     •The increased use of and access to cutting-edge technology; and
     •Enforcing immigration and labor laws including through employer verification including an E-Verify system that is simple, reliable, and protects businesses.
•Oppose amnesty as unlawful, unfair to legal immigrants, and expensive to taxpayers.
•Oppose other rewards for illegal immigrants at taxpayer expense such as in state tuition rates.
•The efficacy and success of border security efforts should not be measured by outputs, but rather by outcomes.
•Support and partner with state and local authorities to address illegal immigration rather than suing them and support them with the resources necessary to do the job.
•Make English the official language of government, not to penalize but to promote opportunity and a common culture for new immigrants.
•Deport immediately all illegal immigrants involved with criminal and drug trafficking activity unless a specific individual would create a security concern because they may be released in country of origin.
•Coordinate all relevant policy areas and government agencies and functions relevant to securing the border and eliminate duplication.
•Prioritize admittance of legal immigrants by what is good for our country rather than lottery system.
•Redefine metrics for successful border security. Goals should be based on tangible results based directly upon actions, such as:
     •Decreased border violence;
     •More apprehensions of illegal immigrants and criminals at the border; and
     •Increased seizure of contraband and illicit drugs.
•Stop the federal government from requiring states to provide government services to illegal immigrants and oppose provision of government benefits not available to all citizens such as in-state tuition.
•Promote legal immigration for highly educated and entrepreneurs from around the world.
•Create a workable guestworker program for America’s farmers.
•Acknowledge the historic and ongoing contribution of legal immigrants to our country as President of the United States.
•Encourage States and local school systems to teach more American history.
•Partner with States to address and prevent discrimination against recent immigrant communities.

[no dems]

Has the Texas GOP changed it back to a ‘winner take all’
____________________________________________________________

Sorry; my bad. As of right now, Texas is NOT a winner-take-all in the Primary.

“There are no plans or discussions for changing to a winner-take-all system,” Party Spokesman Chris Elam said Tuesday.