Without Alabama and Mississippi, Newt is sunk.
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
Any pro-lifer who doesn’t support Rick doesn’t do enough homework:
“On abortion, he is one of many senators who vote pro-life. The difference is that he is personally responsible for making sure a lot of these votes occur in the first place: He was an architect of the effort to ban partial-birth abortion, a strategy that energized the pro-life movement and allowed it to go on the political offensive.”
http://www.heymiller.com/2010/08/the-fate-of-rick/
Very independent, very small government, anti-establishment, anti-Wall Street (she coined Crony Capitalism), highly Nationalist/Pro Defense and military.
Goldwater, Reagan and Palin are very close philosophically.
Yes Plain is clearly an evangelical Christian and walks the talk.
Politically she leads with other themes...
Issues are long past about his married life. Not all it his fault. There's another half who share the blame. Do you think that Newt is going to run after other skirts in the White House at his age of 68? Not very likely. You think Santorum is beyond sin? Christians are suppose to believe in forgiveness and Newt has been contrite about his past life, but Santobots have a problem in giving forgiveness.
Santorum sins like the rest of us and Santos casting stones from glass houses gives everyone else the impression of hypocrisy.
This reminds me of the old stories in the early days of Christianity after the fall of the Roman Empire where hermits would try to outdo others at being "more Christian" than the next by living an anchorite life or by living in caves and who spurned others who they thought were not Christian enough.
ok, so now I don’t do my homework, or worse I am just stupid. I am done here. Support Rick, I hope he wins, and I am wrong. But I doubt it, ok?
No politician is perfect, and while I like Newt, too, he was for mandates.
And while some are using Mitt Romney supporters’ talking points, consider this:
(ROMNEY) “I respect the fact that he put in place No Child Left Behind. I know a lot of people in my party don’t like it, but I do like it. snip”
excerpt http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325227,00.html
Well, I am glad you have the ability to see into the hearts and minds of others so clearly. You do make a good Rick Santorum supporter. Good luck to you with that.
Well, I am glad you have the ability to see into the hearts and minds of others so clearly. You do make a good Rick Santorum supporter. Good luck to you with that.
Yeah I’m definitely not a Romney supporter. He is big government through and through.
No, you are very smart, but you need to research more. Maybe you work hard, so don’t have the time, but why do you ignore research from other folks?
Judging by your post, you are also a bit overly sensitive/emotional, and we shouldn’t vote based on feelings/emotions.
Are you a woman?
I am a woman, btw.
Newt and almost every conservative in the country was for mandates while they were fighting Hillarycare. Keep up, it was originally a conservative concept. IT was very wrong, and Newt freely admits it. So do I. I am not using Mitt Romney talking points, I am using MY talking points. Go for Rick, the best of luck.
Santorum Slams Obama & Romney at CPAC, Receives Standing Ovation & Roaring Applause
February 10, 2012
snip
While Santorum didn’t mention Romney by name, he did target him for his purportedly moderate stances. Additionally, he slammed the former Massachusetts governor’s comments about the poor and dismissed Romney as the candidate with “the most money to beat up their opponent and win the election.” Additionally, he denigrated the health care plan Romney implemented in his state as ”the stepchild of ObamaCare.”
Santorum also had a message for many in the media and in conservative circles who have contended that the race is over and that Romney will be the eventual nominee: Don’t fall for the argument that the party ”need[s] to compromise“ and ”do what’s politically reasonable and go out and push someone forward who can win.”
“We will no longer abandon and apologize for the policies and principles that made this country great for a hollow victory in November,” the candidate proclaimed.
snip
Santorum also took Obama to task over the contraceptive mandate (which the president has now amended), telling the audience that it has little to do with women’s health. As a result of his words, he received furious applause and a standing ovation.
“This is the kind of coercion we can expect. It’s not about contraception. It’s about economic liberty, it’s about freedom of speech, it’s about freedom of religion,” he said. “It‘s about government control of your lives and it’s gotta stop.”
“Government will own you because you will have to pay tribute to Washington in order to get the care you need for your children,” Santorum said. “The major reason I’m in this race is because I believe Obamacare is a game-changer for America.”
I didn't miss a thing.
Like I said before, Newt is virtually tied in that poll with Santo 21.6 and Newt 21.2 regardless of Mitten's numbers. I even posted an article thread of it on FR.
And Santorum is losing in another poll to Newt by over 3 point here "24.7% of voters pick Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum gets 20.1%.
I can make the same argument, it is silly at this point, that your guy Ricky can get out of the race so Newt can win the presidency over Mittens and Obama.
I have researched and listened for a very long time. I am just who I am. I don’t let people know whether I am male or female, because many use that to color what I say. I am passionate about this though. I know that Rick Santorum is the “MOST” pro-lifer out there. And if that was the only issue I had, I would vote for him for that reason alone. Newt is also pro-life, and I truly believe he makes a much better general election candidate. I don’t need more research, we just disagree. And I am ok with that.
I'd say a "good" thread spammer.
Good luck to you with that.
Completely SOL.
And there are a lot of them in Warsaw.
Have to agree with you dt57. Rick will be destroyed by Obama if he wins the nomination, and Newt is actively disliked by vast swathes of the broader electorate.
And Mitt Romney never saw an issue he didn’t hold diametrically opposed simultaneous positions on.
Romney’s the only one of the current nominees who can defeat Obama, and he’s a liberal masquerading as a conservative.
Anyone have a view on the realistic prospect of Sarah being our nominee out of a brokered convention ? That’s our best bet right now.
I'm afraid you're right about Romney and the bad old days.
As for a Christian party, do some googling about Abraham Kuyper and the Anti-Revolutionary Party. (Short version: Kuyper was the founder of a major conservative secession denomination in the Netherlands in the late 1800s, founder of a Christian university, founder of both Christian and general-interest newspapers, and a key promoter of a pre-existing Christian political party; he eventually became prime minister of the Netherlands.)
My theological background is Dutch Reformed — think Northwest Iowa and West Michigan, and connect the dots. That community was key to launching the candidacies of both Huckabee and Santorum in Iowa, and was an important part of Santorum’s support in Michigan. The Dutch Reformed were actively and aggressively talking about a Christian role in politics in the days when far too many evangelicals were saying politics was dirty stuff unworthy of Christian attention.
So is a Christian political party a good idea? If we had a parliamentary democracy, or proportional representation, or even more states with multimember legislative districts, I'd agree with you.
As long as we have winner-take-all single-member districts in most of the United States, and as long as the total number of conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants is less than 50 percent in many parts of the United States, we have no choice but to work with economic conservatives and military conservatives if we want to win elections. The result is the three distinct but overlapping constituencies of social, economic and military conservatives are stuck together as a bickering family arguing among ourselves — if we split, we lose to the liberals.
I know this will sound like some of Newt Gingrich's wilder moonbase dreams, but long-term I would not be at all opposed to having more states with multimember legislative districts because it would make it possible for more people to be elected with strong ideological commitments on both sides of the political spectrum. A few places in the United States already have multimember districts, they're common in Europe, and they're much like the Republican primary system in most states. Basically, in a multi-member district, the top two, three, or four candidates out of all those running get elected. While that could be implemented fairly easily at the state level, it''s not possible at the federal level without a constitutional amendment, of course. Talk like that is so far outside the American political mainstream that it's not really very helpful, and I'm focused on trying to win elections in the current political situation rather than trying to make radical changes in that system.
I like Newt, too, but Santorum is better, and can beat Romney, if Newt drops out.
Rick is way ahead of Newt in National polls:
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.