Skip to comments.Election 2012: South Carolina Republican Primary(Romney 27%, Santorum 24%)
Posted on 01/06/2012 6:17:53 AM PST by Rational Thought
What a difference a caucus makes. Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Palmetto State finds former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still in the lead, earning 27% support from likely GOP Primary Voters, up from 23% in early November. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in third with 18% of the vote, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 11%.
Bringing up the rear are Texas Governor Rick Perry with five percent (5%) and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman at two percent (2%). Another two percent (2%) of these likely primary voters like some other candidate, and 11% remain undecided
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
At the cost of a weak defense that ended up biting us in the new millennium. If you recall, the military budget was slashed heavily and there were massive revenues coming in through the dot com bubble that were unrealistic by even the most liberal business model.
To discount the revisionist history going on here, let's look back at a Steve Moore article from the time period to see what was actually going on.
Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion. We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?
I don't recall any Conservative happy back then because of this "Balenced Budget" because it was a fraud. We all ended up paying for this house of cards in the 2000's.
I heard a video clip of Ronald Reagan sometime back and failed to keep it. However, it was important in that his statement was in favor of Newt Gingrich. At the time I heard it, my thought was, “wow, why doesn’t Newt use this clip as a huge commercial endorsement from the leader of the conservative movement?” Does anyone know what clip I am speaking of and if so, can you link it here?
And you’ve missed mine.
I’m just saying, he’s not getting that 34 percent, now that folks believe that Santorum is electable. I don’t think those numbers are coming back.
When Cain went out, Newt came to the forefront. Then the folks that came over to him have gone back to Santorum. That’s what Iowa showed. It’s not the total, but where the votes were coming from.
From rural Iowa, the most conservative areas voted Santorum. That doesnt’ bode well for South Carolina and this poll confirms my suspicions.
Newt’s support was a mile wide and an inch deep.
You don't think people understand not having a job, being underemployed or watching their investments crumble? Please. WTF country do you live in?
You and many others who dont get it will. You need more than conservartive to win a general against Obama.
So, to you, we NEED Mitt Romney? There are a lot of conservatives on this website who would emphatically disagree with you. Willard does not have charisma and he isn't all that much different than Obama. Yet, here you are on a conservative site telling us we must support him or lose. Good thing you weren't around in 1979 or we would have had RINO Bush eight years earlier, or Jimmy Carter Pt. 2.
Mc Cain had neither conservatism nor charisma. No surprise there. It was over before it was over.
We were told by the likes of you that we had to support McCain because he was the one who could win in November. That lame argument won't work any longer. No president has been reelected since before WWII when the unemployment rate is higher than 7.2%. Do you think the rate of unemployment is going to plummet in the next 11 months? You may be willing to compromise because you don't have the courage of your convictions, but I don't think you'll find much support here.
Arguing for Mitt Romney on this site, and justifying it by claiming it's the only way to win -- and that most people in this country don't share or understand conservative values -- is a weak and risky argument. Just look at the FR front page for evidence. Here's what you'll find:
ObamaCare = RomneyCare = CommieCare. NO Romney! NO WAY!!
A person with values would not vote for a used car salesman like Mitt. But then, I'm at a loss to understand why you want to elect Mitt in the first place when he's not all that much different than Obama.
They said Reagan couldn't win. They said W couldn't beat Gore. I'm sure glad we don't listen to they.
You surely have seen his “problem” right here. He has been attacked from the Right as not “conservative” enough and there are enough people dumb enough to believe it. The Right is its own worst enemy. We have seen it before.
Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.Rick Santorum who two months ago had one percent (1%) support among likely South Carolina Republican Primary voters now is running a close second there with 24% of the vote.
“At the cost of a weak defense that ended up biting us in the new millennium. If you recall, the military budget was slashed heavily”
You are underestimating the level of domestic cuts that Kasich and Gingrich kept sending up to Clinton. They were significant cuts that were bloody Hill and partisan battles.
Moore’s flaw is that as a pundit, we needed a response to Clinton’s claiming victory in the media for the Balanced Budget.
10 Billion in Defense cuts was actually a victory for Republicans, because the Dems wanted much more.
The increased in defense spending were largely due to Entitlement aging problems that we still face, because back then it was a real Third Rail.
I remember these budget battles clearly. To say that Gingrich doesn’t deserve credit for dragging Clinton into Budget Cuts, is just sticking your head in the sand.
Hell Boehner and gang would have negotiated higher defense spending for higher domestic spending...and that is the point.
Gingrich went in the right direction and when he left, it all fell apart....Gingrich is the person who has the vision and experience to do the touch cutting.
With Cain and Bachmann out, I’ve moved onto Santorum and am satisfied with the choice that I might still get a chance to vote FOR someone and not just AGAINST someone.
As for this SC poll, when I get home from Drill and get a break from studying, I’m set to go over the 46 counties of SC.
This poll surprises me because if we are to beleive Romney is at 27%, then something is happening in SC that did NOT happen in IA. That is, Romney needs McCain primary voters from 2008 to win SC. It didn’t happen in IA. As a showed yesterday, Santorum too most if not all of the Huckabee support, while Newt and Perry fought over the Thompson/McCain supporters as evidenced by their percentage totals.
In SC, Santorum’s getting a big edge in the NW Bible Belt and Greenville/Spartanburg. Newt and Perry will get a share of some of that, but for the most part, they’ll be fighting for the Thompson/McCain voters in Myrtle Beach, Darlington, Charleston, and Columbia.
EVEN with the conservative vote split, Romney is NOT in as strong enough position as McCain was to eek out a victory. McCain had at least some conservative credentials, and was supported big by the retirees in Horry and NE SC. For Romney to even have a prayer, he has to pick up a sizeable majority 10%+ of the vote here, something I viewed as difficult, considering this would be the part of the state I’d expect Gingrich and Paul to run their best in addition to what social voters support Santorum and Perry.
The bottom line is that if this Rasmussen poll is correct, then Newt is losing his large share of McCain voters from the 08 primary. If he still had it, then it would be very much likely for Santorum and Gingrich to run 1-2 in SC with Romney in 3rd.
The problem I have is how is it that the McCain voters in IA did not move to Romney in any significant numbers (Gingrich won the largest share of it), but yet they ARE moving to Romney in SC? This doesn’t make any sense. I understand McCain endorsed Romney Wednesday, but still, this is really difficult to fathom. We’re not talking small county pluralities here. Romney’s got to get like 30%+ in places Horry, while Gingrich and Santorum get less than 20%
Let’s use Charleston County as an example, a place McCain carried with 45% of the vote thanks in part to military members and veterans. In 08, it was Huck 16%, Romney 19%, Thompson 12%, McCain 45%, Paul 4%, Rudy 4%
Based on IA, I think it’s safe to say Santorum gets about 90% of Huck’s total, and probably about 25% of Thompson’s. That would give him about 6,070 votes. Gingrich would get about 70% of Thompson folks and was pulling in over 50% of the McCain votes, but that number appears to have dropped around 30%. So Gingrich gets about 7,481 votes. Rick Perry gets the other 5% of Thompson voters, and probably no more than 5% of McCain people for 967. Ron Paul brings in his lunatic fringe like usual, but remember, his rises were always at the expense of Romney in IA and the fact military people supposedly likes him, probably sees him pick up about 3,000. Finally, assuming Romney holds his own totals from 2008, and picks up 70% of the McCain voters, he’d get about 17,125 votes.
So the voting in Charleston County would be:
Romney - 17,125 - 49%
Newt - 7,481 - 22%
Santorum - 6,070 - 18%
Paul - 3,000 - 9%
Perry - 1,000 - 3%
Thankfully, there’s not enough urban places like this in the state (Thank you NW SC) to push Romney forward like this. But these are the kind of margins he’d have to get to win in the areas McCain won. And the only way he gets that to happen is by capturing McCain voters from 2008, a block that appears to have gone to Gingrich and Perry in IA.
So the Newt people need to stop bashing Santorum here. He is not the enemy in SC. The Newt people need to go after the McCain voters that this Rasmussen poll says Romney is getting. He can do this without having any negative effect on Santorum. The SC result could easily end up being Santorum: 32%, Newt: 28%, Romney: 25%, Paul: 11%, Perry 4%.
Gingrich Budget Policy...
“On July 29, 1997, Speaker Newt Gingrich joined fellow Republican leaders on the steps of the U.S. Capitol before a large audience of onlookers and the media to celebrate the passage of the 1997 budget agreement. The balanced budget agreement contained several “Republican” tax and spending policies: constraints on domestic spending, the largest savings in Medicare in history, and the first net tax cut in sixteen years, including cuts in capital gains taxes, a child tax credit, an increase in the exemption for estate and gift taxes, and increased individual retirement accounts. Several Republican lawmakers commented that, coupled with the passage of welfare reform in 1996, the budget agreement virtually completed the major goals in the Contract with America. Such sweeping policy changes would not have occurred without a majority of Republicans in the Senate and the House, and without the leadership of Speaker Gingrich.”
“So the Newt people need to stop bashing Santorum here. He is not the enemy in SC. The Newt people need to go after the McCain voters that this Rasmussen poll says Romney is getting.”
Exactly. Thank you. The enemy is Romney and we need to go after him, not Santorum.
“Exactly. Thank you. The enemy is Romney and we need to go after him, not Santorum.”
Same can be said for not attacking Gingrich.
“What’s his problem?? - just asking!! “
well its his piss poor campaign and gaffes that destroyed him - all self inflicted. First he got in late which in and of itself is not so bad except if you can run a flawless campaign. he cant
he stunk up the debates by looking lost in most then saying “oops” because he forgot what agencies he would cut.
called conservatives who were against in state tuition for illegals “hearltess”
got the voting age wrong
had some rambling speech that made him look drunk that went viral.
he just looks like an incompetant joke
I was unaligned from the beginning and thought Perry sounded promising but was thoroughly disappointed with him and his campaign.
Let me say this about polls in SC showing Gingrich losing
25 points in a month and the liberal Romney actually leading Gingrich by 20 points.
Does anyone with a brain think that if Newt Gingrich had won
Iowa that all of the sudden he would be leading the
liberal Romney in NH? Of course not. Well its the same in SC. Gingrich has actually lead Rommey by a wider margin for months. No one has been close to him.
This polls are media driven to make the lamestream media
favorite Romney look like he is the inevitable nominee. And they also want to show Santorom as the challenger to Romney, knowing damn well Santorum has no way to beat Romney. He has no organization and no money.
Gingrich is the one the media (liberals) and RINOs are scared to death of. The RINOs that control the GOP are aligned with these left-leaning polls to attempt to show Romney with an overwhelmingly lead over Gingrich - the only man who can beat Obama. The white Obama (Romney) absolutely can not beat Obama and the media knows it, the RINOs know it. But they hate conservatives to the point that they will run a liberal candidate againt him because they know he will lose. The RINOs are scared to death a real conserative will be elected president and actually change things in big government Washington. The democrats and RINOs are one in the same.
So I ask the question again. Does anyone think that
if Gingrich would have won Iowa that he would now be ahead
of Romney in NH? The answer is absolutely not.
Romney is no more leading Gingrich in South Carolina than the man in the moon. Media driven polls, controlled by the Karl Rove wing of the republican party to make everyone think that their favorite liberal can not be beat.
“And they also want to show Santorom as the challenger to Romney, knowing damn well Santorum has no way to beat Romney. He has no organization and no money”
Which is why they managed to convince 30k Iowans that Santorum was their man?
Seems clear as day to me. Once people sat down and looked at things, they decided that Santorum was the best conservative out there.
SC is not NH. Santorum draws from the conservatives. It stands to reason if he’s drawing the conservatives in Iowa, that he would do the same in South Carolina.
And this seems to be the case so far. Santorum jumped from nothing to around 25 percent, and that shift is going to come almost solely out of Gingrich support. A 25 point shift in Iowa is likely to be seen also in South Carolina.
Saying that Santorum should drop out and quit to get behind Newt is going to get the same response.
You’re trying to oversimplify it when it’s just not that simple. And to say Perry’s “debating skills are lacking” is being kind.
“The bottom line is that if this Rasmussen poll is correct, then Newt is losing his large share of McCain voters from the 08 primary”
Hmmmm, I don’t remember Newt running in ‘08.
I never said that Santorum should drop out nitwit.
Isn’t Ohio’s in April now ?
“You don’t think people understand not having a job, being underemployed or watching their investments crumble?”
Do you not understand that all this will be blamed on Republicans???? And that it will be believed and voted upon? Obama will come out smelling like a rose this year to many of the above. I know Dems who have lost in the markets. . . big. They’re still voting for him. If you think we can win because the economy is bad, you’re dreaming. It’s gonna take much more than that.
“There are a lot of conservatives on this website who would emphatically disagree with you.”
I know. I know. I can read.
“Yet, here you are on a conservative site telling us we must support him or lose.”
Based on my understanding of human nature, more than political issues. But go on pretending it’s about politics.
“We were told by the likes of you that we had to support McCain because he was the one who could win in November.”
I wasn’t in that group. Never, never wanted McCain. No charisma. No conservatism. Lose. Lose. But yes I did vote for him. Had to.
“Just look at the FR front page for evidence. Here’s what you’ll find:
“ObamaCare = RomneyCare = CommieCare. NO Romney! NO WAY!!”
Seen it. Every time. So what? Other than a veiled attempt to convince the lurkers against voting for Romney because he is not conservative instead of the real reason, it doesn’t mean much to me. But it does say volumes about the level of hate directed to Romney on this site. I’ve seen that before. Nothing new there.
“They said Reagan couldn’t win. They said W couldn’t beat Gore. I’m sure glad we don’t listen to they.”
So now you are “they”, but you have it wrong just like “them”. It’s not about issues, although the speculation and pontification about a presidential election and it’s candidates issues makes tons of money for MSM, the talk show hosts, political analysts and others. It’s a joke now. Everybody’s just SO smart. . . except most of the people who will be voting. The Dems know this. But we don’t.
You are underestimating the level of domestic cuts that Kasich and Gingrich kept sending up to Clinton. They were significant cuts that were bloody Hill and partisan battles.
That sounds JUST LIKE ( not shouting just massive emphasis ) what we need right freakin’ now ~!!
Kasich is my Gov and he’s done a helluva job so far.
Prey tell then, what is the "real reason" FR advises voting against Romney? I thought it's because he's really not all that much different than Obama, but now I'm eager to hear the "real reason". Please expound.
So now you are they, but you have it wrong just like them.
You're not making sense again. The "they" in 1979 were the ones who said a "real conservative" like Reagan couldn't win. Just like you're saying we shouldn't vote for the most conservative candidate today. "They" ain't me, "they" is you.
Anyone who thinks he's saving his kids or grand kids by electing Mitt Romney president isn't using his brain. Nationalized healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, liberal courts, higher taxes, and the expansion of the nanny state will not save your offspring. Unfortunately, there are enough people not using their heads, like you, and too many conservatives splitting the vote, to ensure a conservative runs on the Republican ticket. Mitt Romney/Barack Obama...what the hell is the difference?
But you don't give a rats ass about a conservative pedigree. All you want is charisma. Used car salesmen don't have charisma. It's something very different. You are hopelessly confused.
Looks like Newt is playing spoiler to keep a real conservative out of the nomination.
Looks like 4th place Newt is costing us this nomination by staying in the race at this point.
does this mean I won’t have to fear being banned for not liking Newt?
And I repeat myself.
Romney has a 30 point lead in NH and has for months, same way with Gingrich in SC. Are we to believe that if Newt has won Iowa he would now be leading Romney by 20 points in NH!
the problem is that We conservatives have to rally around one candidate before the South Carolina Vote or Romney will win this nomination by default! With Santorum at 24 % Newt at 18% and Paul the votes are being slit.. We need 1 One Candidate to beat Romney.. As long as there is three Romney wins. Period!!!!!
It ain’t just Newt playing spoiler...
but we conservatives have this problem!!! you have 4 conservative vying for the conservative vote so we need to rally around one candidate to beat Willard!!! Whom shall we pick huh? You better choose pretty soon cause you can’t let Willard win SC!!! If he does he will win the Nomination!!! I’m a Newt guy but I would rally around Santorum!!! Perry ain’t going anywhere and neither is Paul I don’t think!
Up until April 1, all Republican primaries divvy up their delegates proportionately. After that date, they can choose to be winner-take-all or proportional.
In 2008, the early primaries were all winner-take-all -- which gave McCain the lion's share of the delegates, though he never broke 38%.
Because of the proportional sharing of delegates nobody is going to be able to "pull a McCain" in the early primaries -- including Romney.
Consequently, we don't have to select a single conservative candidate...yet. We can continue to watch Santorum, Gingrich and Perry perform and make our determination accordingly.
Not until April 1 do we need to coalesce around a single candidate...
by the time the dragged out election gets halfway through, the liberal media and Republican socialists will have their fix in and I wont even have a choice
he doesnt need more than 25 percent
I believe that Newt has no intention of becoming president and is just a Republican insider riding Shotgun for Romney , to draw votes off of any conservative and insure a win for the Big Government Republican insider choice, Romney
“We conservatives have to rally around one candidate before the South Carolina Vote or Romney will win this nomination by default!”
But, at the latest, we need to coalesce around the leader after SC and Fla. That lets Sant/Ging battle it out to see who will be the strongest in two key states.
The GOP E despises Gingrich...it’s been an assault from Rove and every other pundit against Gingrich for a month now.
Why, after pointless predictions by pundits like Bill O'Reilly, do we only hear about some real details on the overhyped Iowa Primary a week before the vote? Have the polls done by the leftist/ad selling media ever been an honest view of how the country is voting for the GOP nominee?
"When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points." Ann Coulter.
Until the media included the undecideds on Sunday, Gingrich was to own Iowa, followed by Romney. The rest really didn't matter. Here are the numbers from a Reuters story on Dec 12th of those likely to vote in the Iowa caucuses: Gingrich 29.8% Mitt Romney, 20.3%, Ron Paul 10.7%. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachman 8.5%, Rick Perry 8.2%. Since he didn't buy enough ads or hire enough ex/future media people from PR firms, and is a conservative that can win with conservative volunteers, Rick Santorum wasn't worth mentioning. Pat Caddell said that Santorum was in single digits a week before 01/03/12! Keep that in mind as you see the election results:
Santorum & Romney 25%, Paul 21%, Gingrich 13% Perry 10% Bachmann 5% Huntsman 1%.
Is there is a reason to trust a pundit claiming a candidate is "finished" after this "surprise"?
Didn't I read that Newt and Perry both got on the Tennessee ballot, and Santorum failed to qualify? I'd be interested in seeing where each of them is with respect to that.
It won't be because of Santorum. It will be because of whiny assed so-called conservative purists, in synch with the marxist press damning anything short of the chosen one, Romney, to contend with the unknowable Kenyan.
You got a problem with that?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Translation: I believe Newt Gingrich may be falling out of the race because Rick Santorum looks more Presidential and is more conservative than McNewt. We are fortunate that Gingrich has self-destructed this early in the campaign instead of it happing in August, September, and October.
CBS has Romney at 37 percent in SC and Santorum and Gingrich tied at 24 percent. Perry is not mentioned. The political establishment is strong in SC, and it is for Romney. That’s what we are up against with divided opposition.
Thanks for the info it gives me some hope. I do really like Newt’s proposals, and I was ok with most of his Congressional track record.
Did your brother indicate what the situation is with respect to the 2 Ricks? Based on what I’ve heard over several interviews, I don’t believe Newt planned to win Iowa or New Hampshire, and He didn’t think he would bounce up so early in the polls either.
It is a shame he didn’t have the money to respond to all the negative ads in Iowa, but I think he’s going to conserve his money till S. Carolina.
How is Romney going to walk to the nomination with only 25% of the vote? Your bogus fear tactic is getting quite tiresome. Newt is dropping the ball in typical Newt fashion. It's better that you push your denial to the side and realize it now. Everyone is sick of the arrogance of Baraq Obama, and they are turned off by Newt's whiny arrogance as well.
SC is the state of Lindsey Graham; we can’t expect too much of the voters there.
I didn’t know about Mittens spitting on the Confederate flag, but I know he meant it. I don’t think the little southern primary voters know about that either. So many of our little primary voters only know “who’s turn it is.” I am cautiously optimistic but no fool when it comes to SC voters.
A Romney win will be the end of GOP.
Dems know it.
Total revolt on that.