Fox News Poll: Santorum Surges Nationally After Three-State Sweep [Ties Romney at 30%; Gingrich 16%]

FoxNews ^ | February 09, 2012 | Dana Blanton

[Steelfish]

Fox News Poll: Santorum Surges Nationally After Three-State Sweep By Dana Blanton February 10, 2012

Rick Santorum has surged nationally in the race for the 2012 Republican nomination after his three-state sweep this week, while Mitt Romney has lost ground among GOP primary voters. In addition, most GOP voters say the nomination race isn’t over -- someone other than Romney could still win. That’s according to a Fox News poll released Friday.

The new poll was conducted over four nights this week -- Monday through Thursday -- so it provides a unique opportunity to compare Santorum’s support before and after his wins in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. And the results are striking.

Click here to view full Fox News poll results.

In interviews conducted on Monday and Tuesday nights -- immediately before the news of his victories -- Santorum received the backing of 17 percent of GOP primary voters. That was well behind Romney (35 percent) and Newt Gingrich (26 percent), and slightly ahead of Ron Paul (14 percent).

In interviews conducted on Wednesday and Thursday nights -- after his wins -- Santorum’s support nearly doubled, which put him tied at the top with Romney for those two days at 30 percent. That’s an increase of 13 percentage points. Over the last two nights, Romney also received 30 percent, a drop of 5 points. Gingrich came in at 16 percent, down 10 points. Paul’s support held steady at 15 percent.

Looking at the results from all four nights of this week’s interviewing, Romney retains his frontrunner spot with 33 percent, followed by Santorum at 23 percent, Gingrich at 22 percent and Paul at 15 percent.

[ohioWfan]

You need to explain what in the world you meant by implying that Rick Santorum is 'lunatic fringe.'

Do you believe that yourself, or is it your view that because he is pro-life he will be portrayed as 'fringe' by his political enemies, and therefore perceived as that by the voters.

Because if that is what you're trying to say, then no solidly pro-life candidate should ever run for President.

It is your obligation to explain your (bizarre) comment, and not KansasGirl's fault for believing you were saying exactly what it looked like you were saying.

That we are 'lunatic fringe' conservatives if we fight for the sanctity of life.

Please explain yourself, or expect to get more flak for your comments.

[itsahoot]

Turn on CNN... the democrats are not one bit afraid of Santorum.

Head fake, ever play that game? Listen to Rush, he has told us for years that the MSM will tell us who they fear, by naming the one they fear the least. I don't think he has been worn on that issue.

[ohioWfan]

I DID read what went 'back and forth.'

Which is precisely why I asked what in the world you were talking about.

Asking you to make yourself clear is most certainly not 'badgering.'

Insulting others because you can't communicate well enough is not exactly appropriate behavior, IMO.

Please explain. Thanks ever so much.

[ohioWfan]

Ummmm.........Right...........we are still in the primaries. Rick is an unknown to most voters, and he is defining himself in no-nonsense conservative speeches all over the country.

Why do you think that because he is unabashedly pro-life he is in a worse condition than any other conservative who will be painted wrongly and in the worst possible light simply because he or she is a conservative?

Your point.....at least as you are trying to get it across......falls flat in the face of the reality that every single conservative will be wrongly accused by the left. Santorum will be no different, but it certainly doesn't disqualify him.

[itsahoot]

You are absolutely right! This election has to be about jobs, reducing the size of government, reducing the intrusion of government in the lives of citizens, and regaining a fiscal conservative position in Washington.

You are right, We all for Gay Marriage,
Gays in the Military,
Abortion on Demand,
Government controlled Health Care,
Teen pregnancy,
legalizing drugs,
Sex with animals,
Nuclear Iran
All we want is a Job.

........Oh wait, that is the libertarian view, that worked so well for Goldwater.

[ohioWfan]

It's frustrating, I agree. It's even more frustrating to see this ship of fools, running chaotically from candidate to candidate with very little scrutiny or thought. It's almost fanatical in a way.

And that's what scares me so much.

Balderdash.

This is the primary season. Looking at all the candidates in the most objective light possible is what it's for. Eliminating them if they're not even close to being a good choice (Paul, Huntsman, Romney), considering them if they have some good conservative qualities early in the race (Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Cain), and making the decision on who's still standing, and who meets the highest number of criteria in the end, is what it's all about.

Some have decided on Gingrich and some Santorum, each for good reasons.

It's called THOUGHT. That's what conservatives are supposed to be all about, isn't it??

[jim_trent]

> “It’s either the guy who couldn’t hold his PA seat, the guy who couldn’t hold his Speakership, the guy who couldn’t hold the Governor of MA job, or crazy Uncle Paul. Take ur pick...”

It is beginning to look like whoever I pick will lose to Obama. That tends to make me a little testy.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Well then, you surely can tell me all about Santorum’s Senatorial record can't you?

It will be interesting to know all of these “good reason's” why Santoum is suddenly, now so electable.

You see, I have spent months looking into all the candidates and Santorum is one of the very worst. So I don't need a lecture from you, on how to conduct myself and my personal political views. But thanks for trying.

[itsahoot]

Good comeback. I find myself in the same position, however my tagline might give some idea of my leaning.

The truth is where I live it won't matter, but the write in would give me the pleasure of saying none of the above, without any consequences.

I would get to have my cake and eat it to, so to speak, not that there will be any cake if my state determines who the next president is.

[itsahoot]

Anyone who understands the core of our Founders know that to a man, our Founders would be appalled at the anti-individualism of such a statement.

You don't think that they would be upset at all about the total lack of morality that you would have us pursue? You don't know anything about the Founders. Washington, Adams and yes Jefferson would not be content to have us swept into a immoral cesspool. Unless of course you have excepted the total rewrite of history that has been ongoing since Wilson.

[itsahoot]

But, if "they" can take out a true, honorable conservative with the word "macaca" ---

You are right, we are doomed.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

It surely is frustrating, I agree. I am about to follow your plan myself. I would love to see a brokered convention and throw the GOPE into complete chaos.

Although in the real world, it is unlikely Palin would accept the nomination if she were chosen in a BC scenario. I certainly don't blame her one bit for declining either. Not in this “New America”!

[itsahoot]

an asset for the massive independent vote

If the independents fall for that then we have no chance in any case,

[ohioWfan]

LOL! Calling good freepers 'a ship of fools' and 'fanatical' and then belly aching about my 'lecturing' you for your irrational words.

You never cease to amuse, psycho.

But I thought I'd give common sense a try with you one last time.

(Didn't think it would work......:)

Glad you found your imaginary perfect conservative, though. Amazingly thorough research you've done there.....

[ohioWfan]

Note to self - never try to engage in serious political discussions with one who freely admits to being a ‘psycho.’

[itsahoot]

You see, I have spent months looking into all the candidates and Santorum is one of the very worst.

Opposition researcher huh? Who pays for that stuff, when you can get here for free?

[American Constitutionalist]

" If Santorum gets the nomination, I’ll stay home. "

That's fine, there is 4 votes for Santorum in our house that will moot that one non-vote

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Surely you have seen many of those lists of Santorum’s moderate, big spending, Lobyist loving, earmark worshiping, big government supporting, contradictions yourself. They show up here daily.

[ez]

Things will change once a candidate emerges. Obama will have his crappy record to defend. Don’t pre-guess the mood of the electorate. Any of them CAN win.

[American Constitutionalist]

" Turn on CNN... the democrats are not one bit afraid of Santorum. "

From the Democrats past performance, and logic, and with a dab of physiological head fake, do just the opposite of what the Democrats think and say.... they say they are not afraid of Rick Santorum ? why then attack him ?
They are very afraid of Rick Santorum because there is talk that he can actually win against Obama in November.... they are just diluting , and downplaying Rick Santorum's strength.
And ? how do we know that this is a lie from the GOP establishment and the Romney campaign ? since they are a little tepid in going all sleaze and attack Rick Santorum directly ?
It looks like, the GOP establishment, The NOOTERS, and now the Demcorats are underestimating Rick Santorum at their own peril.... or perhaps ? they are all working together.