Skip to comments.Poll: Pennsylvania’s perking up for Rick Santorum; Update: Rick Within five of Newt in … Georgia?
Posted on 02/23/2012 7:00:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In a GOP primary in which all four GOP candidates face the rare prospect of a home-state loss, Rick Santorum looks like he might be able to pull off a win in Pennsylvania, after all. Washington Wire calls attention to a new Franklin and Marshall College poll that has good news for the former senator from the Keystone State:
Mr. Santorum [now leads] former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 45 percent to 16 percent. The other two candidates are in single digits: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comes it at 9 percent and Ron Paul at 7 percent.
Mr. Santorums victories in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri in early February could be prompting Pennsylvania Republicans to take another look. His favorability rating has soared to 63 percent from 46 percent in January. Mr. Romneys favorability, meanwhile, has dipped slightly, to 40 percent from 46 percent.
Tellingly, Republicans in the state cite a strong moral character (36 percent) or the right experience (23 percent) as the most important qualifications for a presidential candidate to possess. Just 18 percent cite a candidate’s ability to beat Obama and an even smaller percentage — just 13 — say it’s most important that a candidate be a true conservative.
The poll was conducted from Feb. 14 to Feb. 20, though, so it doesn’t take into account reactions to last night’s debate, which probably hurt more than helped Santorum. Then again, just 13 percent of those polled cited the prior GOP debates as a reason for their choice of whom to support. Twelve percent said the debates made no difference at all.
Franklin and Marshall’s findings on the general election are less hopeful for Santorum — or the GOP, in general. Barack Obama leads all the GOP candidates in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups. Both Romney and Santorum — the president’s closest challengers — trail by eight points. Since January, Santorum’s chances against the president have improved in the state, but the president’s job performance and reelect ratings have improved, too. Pennsylvania will definitely be a state to watch in the general election; it was a hard win for Obama in 2008 and it will be again in 2012.
Update (Allahpundit): Speaking of losing on your home turf, I’m thinking this might finish Newt off if it happens:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich leads the pack in the first Rasmussen Reports survey of the Republican Primary race in his home state of Georgia. A new telephone survey of Likely Georgia Republican Primary Voters shows Gingrich with 33% support, followed by former Senator Rick Santorum at 28%. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney runs third with 20% of the vote, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul trails with nine percent (9%).
Georgia is one of three southern states scheduled for Super Tuesday, but Newt’s not on the ballot in one of the others (Virginia) so he needs to win at home and in Tennessee to prove that he’s still a regional force. If Santorum bumps him off in his home state, it’s hard to see why he’d go forward. All it would do is help Romney by siphoning off conservative votes from Sweater Vest and there’s no reason for Newt to want to do that.
Someone needs to buy Allahpundit a Santorum sweater vest for his birthday. ( ^;
However, we're still waiting for a poll after the debate from the 23rd of Feb and later. Not to mention to see what happens after millions of ads carpet bombing, which really started about 2 days ago.
Newt carries Georgia.
Santorum is dropping like a cinder block from a cessna.
I think we’ll see Mr. Santorum taking Georgia. Newt’s home turf advantage will melt away as GOP robocalls are replaced by pulling the lever.
Based on everything I’m hearing from the Santorum people it seems he should be stepping aside in Georgia and let Newt win to ‘derail’ Romney. They all think Newt’s people should vote for their boy all over the place ostensibly to stop Romney. Let’s just have everybody vote their conscience.
We’ll have to see the post-debate ones...
I wish I was having an easier time picturing any of the three remaining real candidates winning... As it is, I can picture Romney or Gingrich winning a national election, but Santorum is a much bigger leap of faith.
RE: Santorum is dropping like a cinder block from a cessna.
Which latest poll tells us that?
RE: I can picture Romney or Gingrich winning a national election, but Santorum is a much bigger leap of faith.
Telling us your reasons for thinking so would be nice.
The only magnanimous man in this race is Newt.
His campaign has ran very little in negative ads against any opponents if at all. The Super Pac that supports him ran negative ads against Romney in South Carolina and some in Florida, but in Florida, Romney hammered him with $20 million dollars in negative ads. That was crazy. Of the 3 candidates against Newt, all of them have run negative ads against him and Newt only responded in kind against Romney after they all hammered him with negative ads.
Newt runs a positive campaign. You can’t say the same about the rest of them.
” As it is, I can picture Romney or Gingrich winning a national election, but Santorum is a much bigger leap of faith. “
I am *iffie* on Romney, blinded by my disdain for the man in nearly every catagory, certainly and thoroughly bored with hearing him in any catagory.
Santorum is noisy but not all that cerebreal. He sets off a little unease because of it, like he maybe could go twitchy any moment. I would say that is not a “plus”. The voters themselves seem to be feeling strained, nervous, and unsettled, and need a little comfort, which Rick Santorum does not lend to this primary. You know what I mean?
I like Newt. I feel comforted and courageous at the same time, with Newt in command of the issues.
They keep talking about the debates,,of everyone ive talked too,they didnt even bother watching them.I personally cant stand to hear Newt talk.If i close my eyes he sounds like a whiny old woman with a case of the ooopsies.
All the conservatives came down on Billy Clinton for Monica Lewinsky,How is that any differant then Newt cheating on his wife with Calista”who was also an intern at the time”
FReepmail Antoninus to be added or removed.
I’m in for my fellow amphibian.
Santorum did not present well last night and he's had a campaigns' worth of bad communication in the previous week.
I still expect Romney to win Michigan by 10 points and Gingrich to win Georgia by AT LEAST that much.
Last night's debate showed Ricky for what he is: a blathering blabber mouth fool. He is a two term Senator; trained as a lawyer. Other than that, the man has not accomplished anything of note.
He has spent many years crafting his skills at attaining the highest office in the land. Last night he reverted to a blathering Senatorial fool. This guy is in way over his head.
Ricky boy will be rightfully persecuted for his obsession with using the power of the State to try and make humans "moral" as per his world viewpoint.
Last night he explicitly stated once again open hostility to the individual Liberties that our Founders desired for all.
Fiscal matters mean little to this fool. He would be utterly laughable as a candidate.
Ricky should do the nation a favor and get a "real" job in the private sector and stop obsessing over becoming President.
That is the liberal line. That's a strawman.
He committed perjury under oath silly.
Santorum is dropping like a cinder block from a cessna.
I don’t see any evidence of that.
Newt would be my first choice.
Actually, that would be a bad thing. Georgia isn’t “winner-take-all”. It’s a combo statewide proportional and per-district split delegate. If Romney gets pushed below 20%, he gets no statewide delegates. If things ended up like this poll, it would be Gingrich 14, Santorum 10, Romney 7 (for 31 statewide).
If Santorum dropped out, Romney would get more delegates.
Further, unless Gingrich was getting 50% in a district, the 2nd place finisher gets 1 delegate, the winner 2. Better that the 2nd place finisher be Santorum.
If the key is to keep Romney from getting delegates, it is critical that Santorum stay in Georgia, and that nobody do anything to damage his changes there and propel Romney to a 2nd-place finish in the districts.
Oh my. Newts marriage was over he had been separated for 4 years, tried a brief reconciliation, didn’t work. Moved on, so should you.
Hi Toespi, I thought they were separated and not living together for 6 yrs.when he met is present wife.
His 2nd wife left him and the separation was her idea. Poor Newt gets blamed and trashed so unjustly. Thank you for defending him. He’s not only a genius, he’s a good man.
Let’s go to some of your statements one by one ( and remember, I am not unaware of some of his inconsistencies ).
RE: the man has not accomplished anything of note.
* AS Senator, He was an author and floor manager of the landmark Welfare Reform Act which passed in 1996 that has empowered millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce.
* Santorum wrote and championed legislation that outlawed the heinous procedure known as Partial Birth Abortion as well as the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act,” the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” and the “Combating Autism Act”
* Along with John Boehner and Jim Nussle, Senator Santorum was a member of the famous “Gang of Seven” that exposed the Congressional Banking and Congressional Post Office scandals.
Just three accomplishments I can think of. These are NOT nothing of note.
RE: Ricky boy will be rightfully persecuted for his obsession with using the power of the State to try and make humans “moral” as per his world viewpoint.
I have to disagree with this. Using his position to talk about the need for morality in society does not necessarily mean that he wants to FORCE people to be moral. Even Santorum recognizes that.
The fact that he promises to appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas already puts him leagues up there compared to Obama.
RE: Fiscal matters mean little to this fool.
That would be true only of you disbelieve in the fiscal policies he espoused in this campaign or are totally ignorant of the policies he proposes, or believe he is a liar.
Among the fiscal policies he says he will prioritize are repealing Obamacare and supporting something similar to the Paul Ryan plan.
He has Committed to cut $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years, Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps, time limit restrictions, and block grant to the States like in Welfare Reform, Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP so that Congress and the President will need to balance the budget like Governors are required to do, etc.
With all the above policies he PUBLICLY espoused ( unknown only to those who have not followed him and rely solely to stereotypical media sound bytes ), I don’t think you are justified in saying “Fiscal matters mean little to this fool.”.
Why don’t you go pound sand, Sand?
Noone wants to hear your bloviating nonsense...
And guess what?
It’s really YOU who is the “blabbering, blather mouthed fool”
Stuart Smalley said so.
“When you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you”. LOL
How nice... I don't think I will. I will just enjoy the sweater vest wearing geek try to fool people into believing he is some magical conservative leader. He was an unremarkable two-term Senator.
He has a very disturbing view of individual freedom. Our Founders would be appalled at his views expressed in 2005.
they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldnt get involved in the bedroom, we shouldnt get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals cant go it alone...There is no such society that Im aware of, where weve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
Santorum is outright lying when he states he will NOT use government to impose morality.
I have studied people like Rick. His ego, his "better than tho" attitude, his painful expressions of fake humility shows someone who can be dangerous to our Liberties.
Rick's ego will compel him to arrogantly use the Power of the State to punish those who do not hold his world view. The Constitution means nothing to such people.
You and the other anti Santorum vitriolic posters on this site do yourselves a great dishonor.
It’s fine to support or not support a candidate and have constructive debate here ..even disagreement.
But your acidic anger fueled, meritless character attacks serve only to expose you for what and who you really are; a coward who hides behind your anonymity.
Wonder if your feigned bravado would be quite so fierce is you had to use your real name or better yet, speak in front of real people!
How can they keep saying this!? He has not lived here in over ten years. He was my Congressman and ran out on me like a carpetbagger being chased by a bucket of tar and a split-rail!
Oh silly me,I didnt realize cheating on your first wife to marry your second,then cheating on your second wife to marry your third,was the type of thing that makes a great presidential choice.
Nobody said so. Another strawman. Liberal tactic again.
Here's what was said :
[Clinton] committed perjury under oath silly.
Not only did you fabricate the person about which the comment was made, you fabricated what was said.
Stop digging! You look foolish.
The internal polls indicate that Newt's strong showing in the last debate, will start showing in the surface polls very soon. There is always a lag in their movement.
Newt is also being very vocal this week in particular, making big headlines on his energy policy and workable plans.
Wait another week before you start claiming victory. Santorum was also very damaged in that debate. Time will tell, what demographics are actually in play in this regard.
■FACT: Santorum voted to increase the debt ceiling in 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006. Together, these five votes boosted the federal debt limit by nearly $3.5 trillion. (H.R. 2015, Roll Call Vote #209, 7/31/97; S. 2578, Roll Call Vote #148, 6/11/02; H. J. Res. 51, Roll Call Vote #202, 5/23/03; S. 2986, Roll Call Vote #213, 11/17/04; H. J. Res. 47, Roll Call Vote #54, 3/16/06; Mindy R. Leavit, The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases, Congressional Research Service, 9/9/11) Rick Santorum voted for billions in waste, including the Bridge to Nowhere.
■FACT: Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Rick Santorum)
■FACT: The announcements flowed out of Rick Santorums Senate office: a $3.5 million federal grant to Piasecki Aircraft to help it test a new helicopter propeller technology; another $3.5 million to JLG Industries to bolster its bid to build all-terrain forklifts for the military; $1.4 million to Medico Industries to upgrade equipment for its munitions work. But an examination of Mr. Santorums earmark record sheds light on another aspect of his political personality, one that is at odds with the reformer image he has tried to convey on the trail: his prowess as a Washington insider. A review of some of his earmarks, viewed alongside his political donations, suggests that the river of federal money Mr. Santorum helped direct to Pennsylvania paid off handsomely in the form of campaign cash. (Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, The New York Times, 1/15/12)
■FACT: Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill, which included hundreds of earmarks, including the bridge to nowhere, a teapot museum. (H.R. 3, Roll Call Vote #220, 7/29/05)
■FACT: Santorum supported the Bridge to Nowhere twice. Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Rick Santorum)
■FACT: Santorum admitted he voted for bridge, and defended vote: People say that I voted for The Bridge to Nowhere. I did. I went with the federalist argument, which is, Who am I in Pennsylvania to tell Alaska what their highway priorities should be? (William Petroski, Des Moines Register, 12/29/11) In a single session, Rick Santorum co-sponsored 51 bills to increase spending And zero to cut spending.
■FACT: In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Former Senator Rick Santorum) Rick Santorum even voted to raise his own pay.
■FACT: Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003. (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Former Senator Rick Santorum)■FACT: Santorum voted three times in 2001, 2002 and 2003 to preserve Congressional pay increases. (Roll Call Vote #360, 12/7/01; Roll Call Vote #242, 11/13/02; Roll Call Vote #406, 10/23/03) Rick Santorum joined Hillary Clinton to let convicted felons vote.
■FACT: In 2002, Santorum voted to secure the Federal voting rights of certain qualified persons who have served their sentences. Santorum was one of only three Republican senators to vote with Sen. Hillary Clinton for the measure, which failed in the Senate. (S. 565, Roll Call Vote #31, 2/14/02)
■FACT: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who sponsored the measure, on the purpose of his amendment: Basically what this amendment does is ensure that ex-felons, people who have fully served their sentences, have completed their probation, have completed their parole, should not be denied their right to vote. (Sen. Harry Reid, Remarks on the Senate Floor, 2/14/02)
I didn’t realize that a person’s marriage life made them more or less qualified for a job. I guess Apple should have never let Steve Jobs run the place since he left his wife and tried to get out of paying child support. Or maybe they realized that everyone makes moral mistakes in life and that it’s a lot more important that they hire someone who can run a successful company rather than play the role of morality police who go around slapping scarlet letters on people and blacklisting them for their sins. Luckily they follow the teachings of Jesus to forgive, turn the other cheek, and “let he who is without sin throw the first stone” as opposed to a lot of self-righteous, judgmental, so-called Christians who embarrass the faith.
RE: I didnt realize that a persons marriage life made them more or less qualified for a job
Is it not possible that if a person will cheat on his wife and corrupt his marriage, he could possibly cheat on his country and corrupt the government?
Here’s another view of Santorum’s OVERALL Senate record. Instead of focusing on a few trees, let’s see the overall FOREST of his votes.
Remember, if we focus on some of the TREES of what Ronald Reagan did as governor ( and even as President ), e.g. He signed a pro-abortion bill, he raised taxes in California, and as President, he gave us AN AMNESTY LAW, we would then conclude that Reagan is no conservative ( missing the overall forest ).
Excerpts From the Weekly Standard:
TITLE : Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift?
So, is Romneys claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaigns verdict as the final word on the matter.
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that per its mission statement mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise. Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.
For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members votes based on those votes perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get As are among the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies; they receive NTUs Taxpayers Friend Award. Bs are good scores, Cs are minimally acceptable scores, Ds are poor scores, and Fs earn their recipients membership in the Big Spender category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.
NTUs scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorums 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorums two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorums GPA was 3.66 or an A-. Santorums GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got As in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorums final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats Santorum was the only senator who got As in every year of Bushs first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorums 4.0 GPA over that span.
This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorums part. Yet it doesnt even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
Based on how each state voted in the three presidential elections over that period (1996, 2000, and 2004), nearly two-thirds of senators represented states that were to the right of Pennsylvania. In those three presidential elections, Pennsylvania was, on average, 3 points to the left of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvanians backed the Democratic presidential nominee each time, while the nation as a whole chose the Republican in two out of three contests.
Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that based on this measure were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorums overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorums fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 or barely a D-.
But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 a C+.
In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorums represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. Its an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.
So, if Santorum was among and perhaps even topped the list of the most fiscally conservative senators during this period, who were the least fiscally conservative? That prize would have to go to the two North Dakota senators, who despite representing a state that voted 23 points to the right of the national average in the presidential elections, managed to achieve GPAs of 0.08 (Democrat Kent Conrad) and 0.00 (Democrat Byron Dorgan). Honorable mentions would have to go to Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who got a 0.84 GPA in a state that was 18 points to the right of the national average; Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who got a 0.08 GPA in a state that was 4 points to the right of average; and Utah Republicans Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who each barely cleared a 3.0 (3.11 for Bennett, 3.08 for Hatch) despite representing the state that, in the presidential elections, was the nations most right-leaning (38 points to the right of average).
As for Santorums potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obamas three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorums final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didnt cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obamas three years worth of preparation for the presidency, Obamas GPA was 0.00 a rock-solid F.
Now thats acting like a Democrat something Santorum has never done.