Illinois: Romney 41% Santorum 32% Gingrich 14%

Rassmussen Reports ^ | 3/15/12 | N/A

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has the lead in Illinois but lots of voters are still trying to decide in the final days before the state’s GOP Primary.

The first Rasmussen Reports poll in the state shows Romney at 41% and Rick Santorum at 32%. Trailing further back are Newt Gingrich at 14% and Ron Paul at seven percent (7%).

[parksstp]

Newt has an ego the size of Jupiter.

As for the BS floating around that Democrats helped Santorum win AL/MS, what crack-pipe are you smoking?

Why don’t you actually take a look at the results of the 2008 Alabama Primary
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#AL

Pay close attention to the County breakout. Notice how Huckabee swept the north and McCain the Middle/South (except for Southeast) and Mobile

Now look at the 2012 Primary Map
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/al

Santorum won pretty much where Huckabee did. Newt won pretty much where McCain did except Birmingham, Monty, and Mobile and took Huckabee’s area in the Southeast.

If “Democrats” in Northern AL turned out for Santorum, it’s highly likely they’re voting Republican in the General. Once again, take a look at the margins Bush got against Kerry and compare to what McCain got against Obama. Northern AL is one of the few areas in the country that McCain far outperformed Bush, because the Democrats there had an issue with their nominee.

Santorum and Newt pull the same Demographics:
1. Primarily Male
2. Supports the Tea Party
3. Very Conservative/Somewhat Conservative
4. Income Less than 100K
5. Evangelica/Catholic/Religious/Regular Church Attendance

Romney’s Demographic is the following:
1. Women
2. Seniors >65
3. Hispanics
4. Mormons
5. Moderate/Liberal Republicans repulsed by Social Issues
6. Affluent Republicans >100K

Every Exit Poll keeps revealing the same information. There’s no way Romney gets half of or more support from Newt supporters than Santorum.

[napscoordinator]

Santos is getting wins from liberals Helping him.

Reagan did too in two elections. I wonder if you complained about that too back in 1980 and especially 1984. I guess you just don’t think people should get as many votes as possible. True you are supporting a guy with very low voter turn out so maybe you are confused.

[Mountain Mary]

Newt and his wife are relaxed and enjoying dinners, dancing and just not campaigning much anymore.

Ya can’t pull someone over the finish line if they can’t walk, CatB.

Just not gonna happen. Your arguments for propping up a candidate who is DONE, ie FINI are sounding lame and boring.

[trappedincanuckistan]

With all due respect naps Reagan got disaffected Democrats to join our coalition (socons and ficons). Democrats are organizing to vote for Santorum for the express purpose of handing Obama a fairly easy win in the fall.

[TitansAFC]

I meant here in Illinois (where I live), He can’t win the nomination outright, no.

[Mountain Mary]

And what a surprise it will be to find out that their easy win target is Romney, not Santorum.

[napscoordinator]

Luckily it won’t work and they are going to help elect the Next President of the United States. The reason I am confident in saying that is because of the blue collar states where Santorum will win easily over Obama. Those mid-west states are not going for Obama this time for sure.

[trappedincanuckistan]

I’m just telling you what I see Mary. I see Democrat strategists organizing Democrats to vote Santorum in Michigan (and the subsequent interviews of Democrats that voted for him there; they are not “Reagan Democrats”). I see Democrats on sites like Daily Kos organizing Democrats to vote Santorum. I see Democrat strategists and MSM “analysts” (no friends of ours) absolutely gleeful when Rick wins a primary or caucus.

[trappedincanuckistan]

I don’t know about that. Do you really think Rick can carry Michigan and Pennsylvania against Obama. I don’t see it.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Now, You try to give us a history lesson on how it was during the Reagan years, claiming that the recent Democrat Prank voters are like the Reagan Democrats.

It is you who are either naive, or just simply too dense to understand the difference. Well here, I was there, so I will correct your error;

Reagan Democrats were angry at Carter, so they voted for Reagan in the Primaries AND the General election. Reagan received a very large percentage of them, which is how Reagan won in the last month of the election. But most of those Reagan Democrats, became Republicans and no longer exist

In Santorum’s case, the Democrats who he has so ignorantly pandered to, do not support him, are dedicated Obama supporters and are voting in our primaries for the sole purpose to disrupt our nomination of either Romney or Gingrich. They WANT Santorum to win. Not because they plan do vote for him in the General, but because the believe that Santorum will be by far, the easiest to beat.

It's just that simple. And they may very well make the difference in our primary, if they keep this up.

Thank GOD that most of the really large primaries are closed. So the best that Santorum can do, is force a brokered convention if he squeaks out Illinois.

[JSDude1]

I think we ought to take our majority that is conservative, start a new political party without the RINO Republican-e supporters.

It worked in Canada, when the PC’s split, it can work here if WE split from the Republicans!

-JS.

[Mariner]

Sometimes I take minor and fleeting pleasure in the the thought that Santorum supporters have a strong dislike for Gingrich and his supporters, like me.

Then I am grieved in the realization that only Gingrich stands between Romney and the GOP nomination.

Then I laugh as Santorum and his supporters attempt to cajole Gingrich out of the race.

This is one darn interesting nomination fight. It's not even CLOSE to over. It's not even close to being 1/2 over.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

That is all very true. It may be a brokered convention after all.

[Redmen4ever]

Santorum’s appeal to Democrats - while there may be some mischief makers among the Dems, I think most of the Democrat votes gotten by Santorum have been from blue collar or lunch-bucket type Democrats, who are attracted to the social conservative message, but who have problems with a corporate-type guy like Romney.

In any case, this is one heckuva cage match for the Republican nomination, and it’s anything goes. If Santoum’s edge is getting Democrats to vote for him, so as to be able to run against him in the fall, more power to him.

Romney will undoubtedly win in Chicago and, if these polls bear out, in the suburban ring area as well. Santorum many win in the rural areas, but how many Congressional Districts in the state are dominated by rural areas? Maybe a handful. And, one of them is Romney’s by default since Santorum has no delegates in that district.

The statewide delegates will be meted out in proportion to the statewide vote.

Therefore, Romney has a chance of fetching two-thirds or so of the state’s sizable number of delegates, with Santorum getting the remainder.

Such a result would move Romney further along to the nomination; but, not like Patton sweeping across Europe, more like Grant advancing on Richmond.

Right as of now, Santorum has absolutely no chance of being the “presumptive nominee” of the party. He would need a miracle to defeat Romney in Illinois; and, even if he got that miracle, and put into jeopardy Romney’s chance of becoming the presumptive nominee when the June 6 states hold their primaries, Santorum would still have no chance of becoming the presumptive nominee himself.

Santorum is now saying that a “brokered convention” wouldn’t be so bad for the party. I’d agree, if that meant somebody like David Petraus could be coaxed into seeking the party’s nomination, assuming Petraus is with us on economic policy, which is not to say that we should double down on Afghanistan as Santorum seems to have said. But, the insiders think Jeb Bush would emerge with the nomination from out of a brokered convention. Is this what Santorum wants?

Is Santorum merely a stalking horse for a third Bush administration?

[Psalm 144]

Ugh. I knew I didn’t like him.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Santorum is more of an insider than many here care to admit.

His record proves that theory without a doubt. His rhetoric says the opposite, but he is also known for saying one thing and doing the opposite.....”Taking one for the team” sort of excuse.

[musicman]

[Varsity Flight]

Mandate-Mitt has all the Anti-Bamma-Undocumented “he should be serving us coffee”, government vote. They will absolutely not allow the Undocumented to learn to work the system with another term.

[Psalm 144]

“Thank GOD that most of the really large primaries are closed. So the best that Santorum can do, is force a brokered convention if he squeaks out Illinois.”

My worry is that I read him and Bishop Willard pooling their chips for a Romney-Santorum crash and burn ticket.

[JediJones]

IL is winner-take-all by district in the form of a direct delegate election. Mitt's, Newt's, Rick's and Paul's delegates are all shown on the ballot by name. Whichever 3 or 4 per district get the most votes are the winners. So if this poll holds and Mitt's delegates win 41% of the vote in a district, they win 100% of the delegates with 41% of the vote. He could sweep the state if that poll holds in every district. But as people have said here some districts are more heavily liberal and some more conservative, so it remains to be seen what districts will end up being "could've, would've, should've" districts where the combined Newt and Rick vote could have switched Romney from being the winner to the loser.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html

About 800 of the 1200 remaining delegates are in winner-take-all states or districts, or ones that become winner-take-all if a candidate hits a percentage threshold of the vote.

Illinois (direct delegate election by district)
Pennsylvania (direct delegate election by district)
West Virginia (direct delegate election by district)
California (WTA by district or a mix?)
New York (WTA by district or a mix?)
Texas (WTA by district or a mix?)
Connecticut (WTA by district or a mix?)
Maryland (WTA by district or a mix?)
Wisconsin (WTA by district or a mix?)
New Jersey (WTA by district or a mix?)
Puerto Rico (pure WTA statewide)
Washington D.C. (pure WTA statewide)
Delaware (pure WTA statewide)
Utah (pure WTA statewide)