Skip to comments.Why Newt May Be More Unelectable Than Santorum
Posted on 02/18/2012 12:25:54 PM PST by OrangeHoof
I keep reading on FR that Rick Santorum is unelectable (although Rasmussen's latest poll has him just 6 points behind Obama in a head-to-head matchup) as they try to justify why they are supporting Newt Gingrich.
Santorum is definitely less well-known than the former Speaker, but that's the problem for Newt. He is well-known and not well-liked.
Talking Points Memo has a rolling track of Gingrich's favorable/unfavorable numbers in national polls. His favorables are now consistently in the 20-25% range since the Florida primary but his unfavorables have topped 60% in two of the last three polls (click link below).
On 2/13, CNN had Newt with 25% favorable and 63% unfavorable. CBS/NYT has Newt with 16% favorable and 54% unfavorable. PPP has Newt with 24% favorable and 62% unfavorable.
Okay, these are all left-wing polling firms but is it wise to think they are all wrong? Even at his peak, Newt was 40% favorable and 47% unfavorable back before Iowa. Can we expect someone with such high negatives to beat Obama in the fall?
Now, the media and Mitt Romney are taking their shots at Rick Santorum but, for now, his polling is much better.
There have been five polls since February 12th and his favorables average 32.6% in those polls and his unfavorables average 35.6%. His favorables were higher than his unfavorables in two of the five polls and his margin of difference was never more than 10%. In fact, his worst showings are in the two openly Democrat polls (PPP and Greenberg) which likely oversample Dems.
Gingrich had all of the 1990s to be tarred and feathered by the media. Most voters know who he is and their minds are made up. Santorum, however, is a blank slate to many of them and he has his chance to make his case to America about whether he best represents their values over Obama's. It's probable that Santorum's negatives will go up as he goes through the vetting process and the media anal exam but his favorables are likely to climb too if he sticks to his message on freedom and fiscal responsibility.
When that word is uttered by the GOP elite and the media, I agree with you but I am neither and that wasn't the context I was using. On another thread, a Democrat senator complained Santorum was "uncompromising" which is just the opposite of your typical McCain/Romney/Rove RINO.
When I say "electable", I don't mean RINO. I mean "getting elected".
Of course, he has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney, which is what you meant.
That word "electable", however, is a RINO code word for cave, retreat, wimp out.
Bachman, Perry, Cain, Newt, Rick and heck even my second tier choice Mitt are all far superior to 0ero!
Part of it is presumably the delusion that attacking Rick will help Newt. I call that a delusion, because for the most part all that sort of negative approach will do in a forum like this is get people angry at Newt for having followers who do such things.
Part of it is the divide between conservatives and libertarians, which we have always had in this forum. I don't know how many times I have said that, if we want to win, social conservatives and libertarians need to work together. But there are a fair number of libertarians in the forum who just don't seem to get it. conservatives need to support the economic issues--especially now--and libertarians need to support the "social" issues, such as the right to life, decent marriages, and stable families. You can't have one without the other. But the libertarians just reply, "Ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do!"
Well, as we saw in 2006, if the Evangelicals or other members of the conservative coalition stay home, then you can kiss victory goodbye. You'll never have a stable society that allows, or even requires, baby killing and gay marriages. If you want to cut back big government and lower spending, you need to get the social conservatives on your side. And I will say that I think that's one area where the Catholic bishops, and many pastors, have gone off the rails. It's not Christian charity to build a big government that redistributes money from the productive to the feckless, and keeps more and more of that tax money for their own use.
Personally, I support most conservative social issues but I wouldn’t make them the boilerplate of my campaign. In many cases, it is Democrats and the media who bring up the topic in order to create wedges.
Were I running, I would try as often as possible to change the subject to the economy and Obama’s failure at it. That’s the #1 reason independents will cross over - it’s frustration with the economy and, frankly, any time spent on other topics is time wasted.
The funds raised in these FReepathons go to pay our current quarter expenses. But we're also going to try to replace some of our older servers and failing equipment this year so we're going to add a little extra to our FReepathon goals. John is estimating ten to fifteen thousand to do this and I'd like to get it all in place and working before the election cycle is fully heated up, so we'll try to bring in a little extra now, if we can, and the rest next quarter.
Is your Church of Saint Pollster affiliated with Scientology? Its dogma seems similar and as credible.
They don’t have to follow my line of thinking. I’m not the person who generated these polls. I’d just like to see some acknowledgement that Santorum isn’t the unelectable one in the race as I so frequently see.
If Candidate A has 60% negatives and has won 1 primary out of 8 while Candidate B has 35% negatives and has won 4 primaries out of 9, why are the fans of Candidate A so sure that Candidate B is a loser and that Candidate A can win? If you took the names out of it and just viewed this as A vs B, you’d think either the fans of Candidate A are delusional or simply unable to process facts.
I guess it is asking too much for you to process the concept that Candidate A has been sujbect to the full force of the Romney slime machine while Candidate B has not yet been subject to such.
As such, it makes your analysis that of a partisan, not an objective observer. Which is why it is silly for you to whine about being attacked by partisans from the other side.
After that, the GOP is on its own.
Cain was my first. And I would have liked to see Bachmann do well but she didn't. So I agree with you, it's Santorum or none.
Rick’s unfavorables have not peaked yet, because he’s such an unknown loser, he’s not been targeted yet. He’s super vulnerable.
Newt is stronger. He’s been through the Rino’s and the Leftist’s flames and lived to scorch them with it. Not Rick. Obama would have a field day with him.
Newt just got another $ 10 Million from his big money man in his intent to go after Rick Santorum... so, no, the Newt supporters can’t whine about Negative attacks when Newt’s people and Newt’s money man is doing just that to go after Rick Santorum.
What it is, is the reason that Jim Robinson endorses Newt, and wants Newt, but can accept Santorum if it comes to that.
It is the moderate versus conservative divide, and JR is not the moderate. Santorum is seen as moderate, a Senator type, not exactly the fire breathing, conservative war horse, that is why you can see so many Romney supporters and anti-Palin people find him acceptable, yet they hate Gingrich.
Even polling shows that nationally, the average Santorum voter would prefer Romney to the ‘right wing’ Gingrich, if Santorum faltered.
That is a lie, why are you spamming the threads with it?
Wow! I went through some of those threads. It is funny to see some of his supporters are the same ones that called him a big fat RINO and a disgrace and nasty and all kinds of things. WOW. Just wow. This is why it is tough to be in politics or discuss them because it could come back and haunt you. lol. That was very fun! Thanks for the incredible laugh.
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.