Skip to comments.Fox News Poll: Santorum Surges Nationally After Three-State Sweep [Ties Romney at 30%; Gingrich 16%]
Posted on 02/10/2012 9:57:42 AM PST by 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 isnt over -- someone other than Romney could still win. Thats 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 Santorums 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 -- Santorums support nearly doubled, which put him tied at the top with Romney for those two days at 30 percent. Thats 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. Pauls support held steady at 15 percent.
Looking at the results from all four nights of this weeks interviewing, Romney retains his frontrunner spot with 33 percent, followed by Santorum at 23 percent, Gingrich at 22 percent and Paul at 15 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yes, the delay of the Texas primary may hurt Newt because he has Rick Perry’s support.
But in this election, who the heck knows?
Only when it was true.
We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldnt make any sense at all.
~~~ Ronald Reagan, 1965
The very definition of society precludes personal autonomy. Without knowing the context of the answer, I have no idea what specifically Santorum was dealing with.
Being NPR, I can guess they took a rational small-government position, and asked some bizarre questions about how everybody should be left to fend for themselves.
We have government, at the local, state, and federal level, precisely because our founding fathers, and the history of humanity before them, understood that we need a society to thrive.
You don’t get to decide for yourself exactly how you will live your life. Your choices have boundaries, and those boundaries are the necessary and proper purview of the people as a whole, expressed through the elected representatives of the people.
This is how we keep one neighbor from ruining the lives of all the people in a community. This is how we ensure that property rights are maintained, that the weakest do not need to fear having their possessions taken by the strongest.
This is how we ensure that our children grow up in an environment that will make them productive members of society, by encouraging family units which are the building blocks of society. This is how we provide common resources that are beyond the reach of the individual, but which enhance all of our lives — like fire departments, roads, and police.
This is how we provide for the common defense, and secure our individual liberties.
I wish it would be that easy. It's almost surreal, that so many here think that whom ever is nominated will automatically become the next President. That could not be further from the truth. I do believe that Newt would have a chance against the MSM, but not Santorum. No way, no how!
Not to mention he was for health care mandates.......Oh wait that was Newt, never mind.
It sounds not like a conservative view, but rather like a totalitarian one. "The government knows better than you how to make you happy. The government will control your life for the "good" of all". It's such a despicable attitude, as despicable as Obama's.
This is the man had no problem with big government if it helped his own campaign contributors in Big Pharma. Santorum supported Medicare Part D, a prescription drug plan for the elderly, which added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit. Santorum defeat in 2006 was considered "a big loss in Wa.DC" by the the drug giant GlaxoSmithKline.
Santorum is the guy who was soaking in lobbyist culture during his stay in Washington. He was the Senate's "point man" on the K Street Project and he met with Norquist to discuss how to make sure that lobbyists get well-paying jobs in firms that were seeking to then access and influence Republican Congressmen...
to paraphrase, “This Santorum that sails against us,
carries in its heart the Inquisition.
God forbid it succeeds,
for then there will be no more liberty in America
of conscience or of thought.”
Santorum is a dullard. He’s Perry Como without the sleeves. Italian. Mediocre. Air of moral superiority.
D@mn straight, there is still time to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.
I’m trying very hard not to say anything critical about Santorum although I very much favor Gingrich.
But better Santorum than Romney.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are right, We all for Gay Marriage,
Gays in the Military,
Abortion on Demand,
Government controlled Health Care,
Sex with animals,
All we want is a Job.
........Oh wait, that is the libertarian view, that worked so well for Goldwater.
And that's what scares me so much.
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??
> “Its either the guy who couldnt hold his PA seat, the guy who couldnt hold his Speakership, the guy who couldnt 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.
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.
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.
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.
You are right, we are doomed.
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”!
If the independents fall for that then we have no chance in any case,
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.....
Note to self - never try to engage in serious political discussions with one who freely admits to being a ‘psycho.’
Opposition researcher huh? Who pays for that stuff, when you can get here for free?
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.
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.
It’s a “good thing” to keep Mittens from getting the nomination.
Both Newt and Santorum are contributing to that all important goal.
Sadly true, so many negatives against our guys on this board lately, on all the boards really. Guess we've been infiltrated.
LOL. I have over 300 books in my Liberty library. I have over a dozen books on Jefferson alone. To sum up of the Founders, they thought government was inherently evil. They knew the nature of man and the type of people that would be attracted to government.
Simply put, our Founders main priority in defining our government was to keep it weak, to have it at odds with itself. Rick's view of government is to be activist in the cause of his moral crusade.
You don't think that they would be upset at all about the total lack of morality that you would have us pursue?
They would be upset but their solutions would in no way be what Rick is proposing. They would be highly offended by Rick's preaching that the State can be the source of solving our moral issues.
Our Founders knew if we had an informed society, one left "mostly" alone by government, that a well ordered peaceful society would naturally arise. A society of moral men, strengthened by religious freedom. A society of increasing prosperity brought about by limited government and economic freedom.
To sum it up, a society of "rugged individualism". The type of individual that Santorum seems to rail against. I find Ricks fundamental view of Conservatism to be very disturbing.
Sounds hyperbolic to me. I can't think of one thing he would do with the power of the state that would be disturbing. Can you name some specifics?
Make no mistake none of the candidates running are Conservative as Reagan.
Sounds to me like Rick is just talking about stuff like Reagan's war on drugs. I would certainly hope Rick would revive the era of "just say no." I know that message worked on me and many other kids growing up in the '80s.
Was Reagan really a "small government" guy? I don't think so. He seemed to me like a man with big ideas who did big things. This whole libertarian streak trying to call itself "conservatism" is unwelcome in my opinion. We agree we don't want a welfare state. That's bad government. But there is good government too. For example, promotion of procreation is something other governments engage in and something that we absolutely should too. I want good government, not bad government and not no government.
I am not as optimistic as you are about this. Mostly because, who will call out Obama in an honest way and expose all the details about the economy, etc,,,?
Certainly not the MSM. They will cover for Obama like never before. Who ever our candidate is, it will be attack after attack on every aspect of their character. What you might see as a positive Conservative quality, they will spell as a radical fringe, fanatical fault.
You can also expect every cover-up and smoke screen imaginable in regards to the real issues or how bad the economy really is. The very opposite is what will be broadcast 24/7.
The economy will be making miraculous gains and in a complete recovery, and America will LOVE their great President, or at least will be painted as starting to understand how great he truly is........In fact, you better invest in an industrial sized vomit bag. You are going to need it in the coming months preceding the election in November.
But I am disturbed by those who seem to think being pro-life is not a conservative quality. And I am more than disturbed by people who claim to be conservative, but dismiss morality as if it were something that interferes with 'true' conservatism.
My guess is that almost all of them are Paulites, whose ethics are, at best, questionable.
But it's just a guess based on what I've seen around here from the Paul 'spam-monkeys.'
Two issues can sink Obama...The Keystone Pipeline and this Obamacare/contraception flap. This contraception issue is a gift from God, because it allows to show a truly disturbing and unexpected result from Obamacare that confirms our previous “fearmongering” about it. Death panels aren’t so far-fetched now, are they? The contraception must be tied to Obamacare every time it’s mentioned.
The Keystone Pipeline just speaks for itself. It shows how Obama is contributing to unemployment and it shows he’s helping keep gas prices high, the two major economic issues. Keep in mind Pennsylvania is the “Keystone State.” So even though the pipeline didn’t go through PA, that name has a psychological effect, making it feel like it impacts PA and making PA voters ears perk up.
No matter whether he flip-flops on those issues or not, if just those two things are relentlessly hammered, we can win the election.
No need to work overtime at it. Relax, you and your Rickbots will get us there.
(You never did explain what you were trying to say about Rick's pro-life stance, but I thought I'd ask the next obvious question).
You're not very bright, are you?
Anyway, please listen up --- if you're going to accuse every stranger of being pro-abotion simply because he or she disagrees with you about Rick Santorum's electibility you will increase the number of people who vote against your hero --- because they won't like you and YOUR message.
So, get a clue, learn the art of debate --- or help your candidate go down in flames.
Your choice. But in all candor, I'm hoping you continue to make the wrong one.
Get ready for a “crisis” in the Middle East, or some disaster like the Japan Quake, etc,,. The issues that will sink Obama will become pretty much non existent in the many months before the election. You can take that to the bank.
I hope you of all people didn’t think I typed that horrid sentence. I was cut and pasting from another FREEPER.
I am devoutly pro-life, always have been. I also know it's not enough to win a national election when 50% of the electorate likes the guy in office. And Rick Santorum is seen by a majority I've spoken with and met with over these months (not on this site) as a one-note "zealot". (Their word, not mine.)
I want depth, wisdom, commitment, experience, smarts and patriotism back in the White House.
I want Newt Gingrich.
which rose more than $1 million.
Oh well. He is raising a million a day now so that is extreme old news. You have no idea what it takes to run an organization so until you do than you cannot say one word about President Santorum.
Shouldn’t both of you try to help Perry. Both of you were for Perry and were upset when people bashed him constantly and now you guys are doing it to President Santorum. I hate to say it, but you both are HYPOCRITES. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Not so much for bashing Santorum but complaining when people were bashing Perry.
>> CATO Institute’s David Boaz <<
Not that there’s anything wrong with being homosexual, but just in case anybody is interested, Boaz is homosexual.