Posted on 02/14/2012 6:47:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Consider this a corroboration of Gallup and Pew, both of which have recorded a surge for Rick Santorum that makes him the national frontrunner — if not in each state. The CBS/New York Times poll shows Santorum gaining 14 points in a single month, eclipsing Mitt Romney by three points (still within the MOE), whose support stayed virtually unchanged from January. Almost all of the gain comes at the expense of Newt Gingrich, who dropped to fourth place behind Ron Paul among Republican primary voters:
Rick Santorum has pulled slightly ahead of Mitt Romney in Republican primary voters’ preference for the presidential nomination, a national CBS News/New York Times Poll shows.
Ron Paul is now in third, followed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
Among self-described conservative voters, the shift has been fairly dramatic. A month ago in this poll series, conservatives were equally split between Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum at 25/25/24 respectively. Now, however, Santorum’s support in this demo has risen to 38%, while Romney has remained steady at 24% and Gingrich dropped by about half to 12%. The same thing has happened to Tea Party support and evangelicals. The dynamic seems to be a movement away from Gingrich and a consolidation among conservative voters behind Santorum as the alternative to Romney, at least for now.
There are a few things to note about this poll, however. This is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters, which is not as predictive a model and is a curious sampling choice in the middle of the actual primary voting. These results come from a larger survey, most of whose results will be announced later. The overall sample was 1,064 registered voters, but only 331 of those planned to vote in a Republican primary. At least a few of those will be independents rather than Republicans, so the partisan split of the overall survey is likely to be highly skewed to Democrats. That doesn’t matter for these results, but a sample of 331 registered voters for a national poll is on the small side. Keep that in mind.
Now that Santorum has become a legitimate force in the race, he’s getting some attention from the usual suspects. Member of Occupy Tacoma tried to crash a Santorum event, and Politico reports that Santorum responded by calling them agents of “true intolerance”:
Filling the front row at the Washington State History Museum where Santorum spoke, a group of Occupy protesters disrupted the event, forcing Santorum to engage them. Occupy Tacoma, the local branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement, is camped out right next to the museum, and advertised Santorum’s visit on its web site.
“I think it’s really important for you to understand what this radical element represents, because what they represent is true intolerance,” Santorum said, after two protesters were taken to the ground and placed in handcuffs by police.
The protesters, Santorum suggested, “instead of standing here unemployed, yelling at somebody” should instead “go out and get a job.”
Santorum’s supporters roared their approval, chanting “get a job” back at the Occupiers.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then …
Oh, please! First off, it is a complete and total MISNOMER that Obama is some incredible debater. I was not at all impressed with his debate performances even when he went toe-to-toe against Milquetoast McCain in 2008. Second, I think Santorum has done quite well for himself in the Republican debates. Did you not see how he completely took Romney apart in their exchange over RomneyCare during the last Florida debate? In fact, I would argue that you could trace beginning of Romney’s current decline in the polls from that exchange.
Rick Santorum is NOT weak and CAN beat Obama in a general election.
I know exactly what I am saying. If Obama wins, so be it. Better to have the official evil than the one in disguise.
And probably has a very low regard for women in general.
I won't participate in a circular firing squad between Rick and Newt. They are both capable and qualified, both conservative, and both would be a gazillion times better than Obama.
When the entire future of our nation is at stake, the idea that people are shooting each other with comments like "You only like Rick because he's cuter" is reprehensible.
I would suggest that you get up to speed on the potentially irreparable damage he will do with another four years in office before you post again.
Obama won PA by 10 pts, Rick lost by 13.
The DNC is clearly trying to set up out candidates as "anti-contraception" -Morris is really on to something there about how that question showed up out of nowhere in those early debates- and Santo will be very easy to paint as 'too kooky religious right' on women's "reproductive rights".
Go Newt!
Here is a good article.Gingrich and Santorum have one goal get Obama out.I kindly disagree with Gingrich having any comeback though.
You don’t know PA politics.Apples and oranges and a very bad talking point.
Chuck Norris says no to big spending, Romney-backing (2008)
Santorum. Here’s his reasons why he picked Newt over him.
http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2012/02/14/why_i_chose_newt_over_santorum
>>Newt would govern conservatively but without trying to lecture or coming off as holier-than-thou. <<
Seriously?
Coming off as “holier-than-thou” is his stock in trade. And he makes his living lecturing others on how things ought to be.
I’m not saying this should count against him, but c’mon...get real here. Newt is “holier-than-thou” personified.
Newt Gingrich is done, in fact, burnt toast. Romney is on life support!!! A vote for either Gingrich or Romney is a wasted vote!!! It’s time to fish or cut bait, by getting behind Rick Santorum. I’m sick of seeing Freepers fawning all over Gingrich. For goodness sakes, give it up. Newt had his wonderful chance and he blew it big time. Folks broom Newt and Mitt, NOW!!!!
douginthearmy wrote:
<<
Obama won PA by 10 pts, Rick lost by 13.
>>
**************************************************************
Those numbers mean absolutely nothing now. Santorum lost his 2006 senate race in what was a HORRIBLE election year for the GOP overall. Many voters had become war-weary then and began buying into the relentless non-stop negative media propaganda against Bush over the previous four years. Meanwhile, much of the public got swept up in Obamamania and all the HopeandChange crap in 2008 and Obama was able to win states without even having to show he was qualified for the job of the presidency.
It’s a whole different world now and Obama now has a record of failure, lawlessness, recklessness, and destruction to try and defend.
The GOP was walking on sunshine in 1994 and failed to win the WH in 1996, so anything can happen, unfortunately.
Gingrich is going nowhere!!! And....if Newt really loved his country, he would withdraw from the race immediately like he cajoled Santorum to do!!! He has not yet withdrawn, meaning he loves himself more then his country. The handwriting for Newt is clearly on the wall for all to see, in fact, he is ten times worse then Santorum was, when he was prodding Santorum to withdraw!!! He had his run at the prize, and he, and only he, blew it away!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That was a good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Some liberatarians do -- it all depends on how you define "conservative". "That government is best which governs least" has long been a prime tenet of conservatism -- at least one branch of it. And a lot of people support that statement as a general rule even if they aren't as extreme about it as Ron Paul. Heck, that was Reagan's brand of conservatism. And I don't want to alienate those people, but some of Santorum's statements may well do that.
A lot scarier than Rick Santorum's actually believing what his church teaches, isn't it?
I've got zero problem with Santorum believing what his church teaches. I do have a problem with him beeliving thinking that everything his church teaches regarding morality involves something in which the govenrment should be involved. I don't want the government being involved in subsidizing contraception because I don't believe in subsidies period.
But I also do not want a President who believes it is his role to impress the teachings of his church on the rest of us. Nor am I thrilled with the idea of a President who thinks it is his role to stop people from using birth control because they'll engage in sex that he doesn't think is for the right purpose. None of his business.
I'd still vote for him over Obama, but if it comes down to a choice between just him or Romney, I'll either write in someone else's name or not vote at all.
Christie at the beach wrote:
<<
I think so too and by his poor performance with David Gregory, the other day shows he cannot even understand nor handle when the left wing anchor referred to some of his ideas as bigoted and sexist. Rick just giggled and smiled. It was very telling. Newt would not have allowed Gregory to got away with that nor Palin.
>>
************************************************************
You could probably fill a small auditorium with the number of people who ever even watch David Gregory’s dull and boring program. In fact, I didn’t even know Rick Santorum appeared on his show until reading your post. So if Santorum would’ve wasted his time and energy lashing back at Gregory, it would’ve been the equivalent to the analogy of a tree falling in the woods with nobody around.
Newt has surrendered far too many issues to be a viable candidate. It takes more than a debate performance and a few soundbites to get voters motivated, and thus far Santorum has the momentum while the rest of the field stagnates or sink like a stone.
I think he’ll be a good president but we can make him a great president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.