SOUTH CAROLINA LATEST POLL: Gingrich 40%, Romney 26% (ARG Poll)

gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com ^ | 1/21/2012 | Greta Van Susteren

[TBBT]

Below is from my FNC colleague Serafin Gomez

—- Subject: SC Final: Gingrich 40%, Romney 26%

Newt Gingrich leads the South Carolina Republican presidential primary with 40% and is followed by Mitt Romney with 26%, Ron Paul with 18%, and Rick Santorum with 13%.

Gingrich has gained 7 percentage points since the survey conducted January 17-18 and Romney has lost 6 percentage points since that survey.

Gingrich leads Romney 47% to 24% among self-identified Republicans, followed by Paul and Santorum with 14% each. Paul leads among independents and Democrats with 33%, followed by Romney with 31%, Gingrich with 18%, and Santorum with 10%.

Gingrich leads among those likely primary voters saying they are supporters of the Tea Party with 48%, followed by Romney with 19%, Santorum with 16%, and Paul with 14%. Gingrich leads with 33% among those saying they are not supporters of the Tea Party or are undecided about the Tea Party, followed by Romney with 31%, and Paul with 22%.

[GOPsterinMA]

POST OF THE DAY!!!

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is an open primary, which is the reason that Ron Paul might actually close the gap with Romney if Romney fades fast enough.

I didn't know that. I assumed it was closed, based on the more conservative polling trend compared to New Hampshire. That tells you something about the different overall mind-set in S.C.

It’s an insane way to choose a candidate, i.e., letting the opposing party’s voters have a say in the process.

Completely agree. It must be what happens when "moderates" are allowed to set policy.

[rwfromkansas]

A new attack from Rommey today was on Newt to release info on Freddie Mac. It appears that will be Romney’s new attack.

Kind of like a liberal would attack...

[N. Theknow]

America will feel the pain when Obama beats Newt. No way Newt beats Obama.

Newt is already beating 0bama.

Beating Romney is the same thing, and Romney doesn't have record unemployment, record number of folks on food stamps, record high gas prices, record loss of home values, and record number of failed policies against him like 0bama does.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

‘no Romney tax returns stupid’ will be the historical slogan.Romney went down in the polls when it was reported he has accounts overseas.Watch for Rove or some idiot to say Romney will release them but it is too late.The MSM can dig up an old as dirt Esquire article to try to smear Gingrich but they let Obama pass on his college records.The media and Obama machine lost they’re alinsky touch it no longer works.

[Jim Robinson]

Go, Newt!!

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

How is it conservative to vote for a three times married man who supported cap and trade, profited from Fannie/Freddie, and is pro amnesty?

Because he's our prodigal son.

[Norseman]

>>If Paul is funded by Soros, a 3rd term run by him is almost a certainty.<<

>>Who would that hurt most. Newt or Obama?<<

I personally think Gingrich is the one GOP candidate who could co-opt Paul’s message, and in the process possibly pick up a ton of young voters who might otherwise vote for Obama, or, more likely, just stay home.

There is a strong current of “Get the Government Off Our Backs” among the young right now, partly due to government threats to the internet, but mostly due to Obama’s failure to ease up on the marijuana laws. In fact, he could be accused of enforcing them more strictly.

Gingrich would have not trouble convincing those young voters that he’s for limited government, but where I think he could really make inroads on Paul’s vote would be if he seriously addressed the implications of legalizing marijuana. And I think Gingrich is the only GOP candidate that could get away with doing this. They wouldn’t believe Romney, and Santorum would never even consider it I suspect, but with Gingrich’s reputation for venturing into uncharted waters, he could get away with raising the issue.

And personally, I’d like to see him do it. It would be another “Nixon goes to China” moment for the GOP, and could lock up young voters for a generation, if handled correctly.

Thoughts, anyone?

[fkabuckeyesrule]

Of course now the MSM is trotting out the “well does SC vote really matter that much” line. Now that got Bill Clinton into a little hot water last time. If I understand this all the next battle is Florida and that will really be big for Romney depending on how he does tonight. It will be interesting if Rubio makes an endorsement for that.

[Tramonto]

Once Rick Santorum drops out of the race (which should probably happen Monday) it might be time for you to stop trashing Newt here on FR.

Do we have to start pretending that Newt isn't a big government conservative?

[presently no screen name]

Sorry, santorum doesn’t score any points. His problem is he believed the press.

That job is for PERRY! That is, if he wants it. Patriotism gets rewarded!

[Utmost Certainty]

Anyone who's actually paid attention to and read Newt's proposals, would see he's very much for limited government in many of the same ways Paul is—just without the insane foreign policy that Paul has, etc.

Just recently Newt's been talking about how he would pursue efforts to return the US to a hard money, gold-based standard. :) Something that might be worth passing on to any Paulbots you might know.

FWIW, I'm Libertarian and I'm quite fond of Newt's ideas and positions. So I can definitely vouch that there is traction for co-opting (sane) Libertarians over to Newt's column.

[erod]

Mittens looks a little uneasy in that photo!

[Flint]

"This is about winning an election, not debates. FYI, if we nominate Newt, we can never talk about family values or the sanctity of marriage again."

Oh really? Since Newt is quite open to talking about it and has indicated he made mistakes in his earlier life. And since he has asked for forgiveness (to a Catholic it means went to confession, did his penitents and received absolution). His wife and family have accepted him and a goodly percentage of America has done the same, why can't we talk about it?

[Berlin_Freeper]

Nice to know your opinion.

I’ll try to remember it two minutes from now.

[Norseman]

>>FWIW, I’m Libertarian and I’m quite fond of Newt’s ideas and positions. So I can definitely vouch that there is traction for co-opting (sane) Libertarians over to Newt’s column.<<

Interesting. Thanks for the perspective. And what do you think would happen if Gingrich opened marijuana legalization up as a topic for discussion?

I have some very conservative friends, many of whom have used pot at least a few times in their lives, and most of them are of the opinion that our marijuana laws are draconian, though they do worry about the impact on usage of harder drugs if it were legalized.

[JSDude1]

Yes, because Reagan blazed the path-and shows that Conservatives can and will win when we run on ideas (leftists’ ideas are bankrupt and wrong)!! God Bless, J.S.

[unixfox]

America will feel the pain when Obama beats Newt. No way Newt beats Obama.

So we should pack it up and just give it away?

With that type of thinking we might as well not play the Super Bowl either. Because we all know the Patriots will win.

[SatinDoll]

How so? Obama is deeply disliked and untrusted by Democrats.

[Belteshazzar]

You’re right of course. Which politicians ever have been paragons of virtue?

Except, of course, Adolf Hitler. He loved animals, and so wouldn’t eat them. He was a vegetarian. He was a teetotaler. He not only didn’t smoke, but wouldn’t allow smoking in his presence or residences or workspaces. He was so virtuous he had no woman, but gave himself wholly to his nation. He strongly disapproved of sexual hijinks on the part of his associates, and favored marriage for them. When approached by his propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, for his permission to divorce his wife, Magda, Hitler refused, and compelled Goebbels to remain married to her (she, sweetheart that she was, later murdered her six children in the Fuehrerbunker before dear Josef, with her permission, shot her and then himself).

Other than his little foibles of genocide and inciting a world war, Hitler was a real nice guy, right?

One could go on and on. Virtue is good, real virtue. But observable morals and real virtue are not quite the same thing, connected to be sure, but not the same thing. And everyone falls short of real virtue.

Best to look at it this way: would the American people rather cede leadership to a political party that approves of a steadily downward trending degeneracy (the modern day democrat party) or a party that upholds what we all know in our conscience to be right while at the same time having some of its leaders exposed as cheats and hypocrites from time to time? And on this score it should be remembered, as Rush points out, immoral behavior is a resume enhancement in the democrat party, whereas the Republicans have a way of punishing their own for such misbehavior. But they also have a way of recognizing when wrongdoing is admitted openly, forgiveness asked, and better behavior follows.

The old saying goes: “Hypocrisy is the deference vice pays to virtue.”

Newt is a flawed conservative. But he is most surely a conservative. He is deeply knowledgeable about the U.S. and its history and governance. And he fights ... even against long odds. Therefore, in my view, he is the best available candidate to take on the Obama slime and deception machine. That machine will eat Mitt or Rick.