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 ...
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.